Why US officials believe sanctions, not bombs, will force Iran back to the table

As the United States seeks to revive talks with Iran, senior US officials believe that sanctions, financial restrictions and economic pressure could do more damage to Tehran than military strikes, a Hindustan Times report said.

President Donald Trump halted military strikes after 13 days to give diplomacy another chance. He claimed on Monday that Iran was seeking talks, although Tehran denied it was demanding direct talks, according to the Associated Press.

US officials say Iran’s worsening economic crisis is now their strongest lever.

“The Iranians want to stop bombing and they want money. But it’s almost in reverse order. They really want money first,” a senior administration official told Axios.

Public data and intelligence assessments indicate that Iran is under increasing financial pressure and gasoline shortages despite being one of the world’s largest oil exporters.

Read also | Trump warns of “very strong military action” against Iran if diplomacy fails

Already wounded Iran?

The US official also claimed that Tehran is struggling to finance its military operations.

“The news picked up that the Iranians are complaining that they can’t pay their fighters. Why? Because of financial pressures. Because of the treasury. Because of what (Treasury Minister) Scott Bessent is doing,” the official said.

“They’re in danger of having their banks attacked. There’s a shortage of gasoline in this giant oil-rich country. They’re more afraid of the Treasury than the War Department.”

The Trump administration has reportedly imposed sanctions on more than 1,000 individuals, ships and aircraft as part of its renewed “maximum pressure” campaign targeting Iran’s economy.

According to reports, Iran has made access to frozen assets and sanctions relief its top priorities in the ongoing negotiations.

An effective strategy?

Not everyone is convinced that the sanctions campaign will work.

Brett Erickson, an analyst at Obsidian Risk Advisors, described the latest sanctions as “fairly light-hearted,” saying they were unlikely to produce meaningful results.

He wrote on X and said, “More sanctions? On Iran? Look at what Treasury and OFAC have done in the last two weeks, the conflict has renewed. They have barely released any new sanctions and the only notable one has targeted the Shamkhani network, which Iran apparently created by firing… There is nothing left at this point that actually means sanctions.”

He added that while a naval blockade could be more effective, its enforcement is patchy.

“A blockade you can certainly make an argument for, but considering we let 80 million barrels of oil go through the blockade waltz in the 27 days of the MoU…good luck,” he wrote.

Erickson also questioned the broader strategy of using economic pressure to weaken the Iranian regime.

“Economic warfare is a fundamentally flawed approach to the Iran war. You’re telling me that our strategy to get the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow the regime was to kill a lot of them, make them suffer, make their economic pain worse… and then they’ll side with us? We’ve just made their lives needlessly worse.”

Read also | The Iran deal leaves more questions than answers. Why are oil prices falling anyway?

Diplomacy over war

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the administration’s approach, saying:

“Combined with the successful sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy and 13 consecutive days of strikes against military targets in response to their repeated aggression, Iran would be wise to work towards a negotiated agreement. Otherwise, they know what will happen.”

Indirect negotiations continue through intermediaries, including Oman, Pakistan and Qatar.

According to Reuters, one proposal under discussion concerns the administration of the Strait of Hormuz. The plan would reportedly give Iran and Oman a role in overseeing maritime traffic and allow them to generate revenue from shipping.

Despite continued diplomatic efforts, the two sides remain far apart. Iran is seeking safeguards against future US military action, while Washington wants Tehran to release its remaining nuclear material before any deal is reached.

Read also | America Has Few Good Options for ‘Massive Attack’ on Iran