Tariffs Instead of Bombs: Understanding Economic Leverage over Iran and Eurasia

Donald Trump has obviously changed the US approach to global conflicts. Today, it is more advantageous for America not to fight directly but to earn and control through tariffs, sanctions, blocking transport corridors, and managing the flow of goods and resources.

Photo: Generated by AI by DALL·E 3 by OpenAI is licensed under Free for commercial use

Donald Trump

Why Economic Pressure Is More Advantageous than War

War has become too expensive and risky, while economic pressure proves far more effective. In effect, the US has found a new way to subordinate states: not through tanks and bombings, but via customs barriers, logistics hubs, and control over who delivers oil, gas, and goods along which routes.

This logic also explains the US-Iran confrontation. It is not primarily about the nuclear program, threats, or ideology, but about controlling key Eurasian trade routes. Iran is not an "enemy of civilization,” but a node without which it is impossible to block alternative trade routes between Asia and Europe. Everything else serves as convenient explanations for public consumption.

Official US Rhetoric on Iran

Official US rhetoric frames Iran around three factors: its nuclear program, missile potential, and support for proxy groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah. These factors are real and present regional security challenges, but they do not fully explain the scale of pressure on Tehran, especially considering Washington's declared reluctance to enter a new large-scale war.

Understanding the deeper logic requires moving beyond military and political narratives to view Iran in the context of global geoeconomic competition.

Oil as Incentive

Iran occupies a key position in global energy. According to OPEC, proven oil reserves stand at approximately 208.6 billion barrels, roughly 13 percent of global reserves, making Iran one of the largest potential players in the oil market. Even under sanctions, Iran maintains production above 3 million barrels per day and exports 1.3-1.6 million barrels daily, mainly to China. These deliveries come at a significant discount, giving China a price advantage and undermining the effectiveness of US sanctions.

Energy alone does not capture Iran's significance. In a transforming global economy, the critical factor increasingly lies not in resources themselves, but in the routes of their delivery.

Control Over Supply Chains Matters More Than Buyers or Sellers

Global competition is gradually shifting toward securing transport corridors. This shift accelerated amid the maritime logistics crisis. Since late 2023, disruptions in the Red Sea and Suez Canal have effectively blocked one of the world's key trade routes. Attacks on commercial ships, rising insurance premiums, and security threats forced many shipping companies to abandon the traditional Asia-Europe Suez route.

Before the crisis, shipping goods from China to European ports via Suez took 25-30 days on average. After the disruption, significant shipments were rerouted around Africa via the Cape of Good Hope, extending delivery times to 35-40 days and sharply raising costs. Previously reliable and inexpensive maritime logistics have become vulnerable to local conflicts and unstable regions.

The China-Russia 'Silk Road' and Eurasian Alternatives

Alternative overland and multimodal Eurasian routes have gained unprecedented significance. These include the Northern Sea Route, the Middle Corridor-the new Chinese Silk Road-and the Russian-Iranian North-South transport corridor. The Northern Sea Route allows delivery from China to Europe under favorable ice conditions with icebreaker support in 18-23 days, at least a third faster than via Suez.

China is actively developing transit through Kazakhstan, the Caspian Sea, and Azerbaijan toward Europe. The so-called Middle Corridor (Trans-Caspian International Transport Route, TITR) links China to Europe bypassing Russia, passing through Kazakhstan, the Caspian, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey. This route delivers goods in 10-12 days, dramatically improving logistics for high-tech and time-sensitive cargo.

Simultaneously, the Russian North-South corridor connects northwest Russia to Iran via the Caspian. Transit from Russian Baltic ports to Iran's Shahid Rajaei port in the Persian Gulf takes 5-7 days, creating a strategic "window” into Asia and key markets in India and China.

Together, these corridors form an alternative logistics system that diverts a substantial portion of Eurasian trade from US-controlled maritime routes. Full functionality of these routes undermines the economic rationale for European maritime shipments from China, whether through Suez or around Africa.

US Strategy: Blocking Transport Routes

This context clarifies Washington's strategic concern. The US and Europe maintain control over major maritime outlets-the Baltic, the Black Sea via Bosporus, and some northern routes-but land and multimodal corridors through the Caucasus, Caspian, and Iran bypass this control.

The Southern Caucasus, particularly Azerbaijan, emerges as a central node. Chinese and Russian corridors pass through its territory, and the country functions as a logistics hub for transshipment, customs, and access to Turkish and European markets. US diplomatic activity in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan-high-level visits, investment and framework agreements, inclusion in international initiatives-aims to integrate these countries into a Western-influenced infrastructure system without direct administrative or military intervention.

The Armenia-Azerbaijan Track in US Strategy

The US played an active role in the Armenia-Azerbaijan settlement. Washington effectively pressed Armenia to conclude peace with Azerbaijan and open transport routes through Armenian territory. A key outcome is the opening of the Zangezur corridor, approximately 40-50 km, with management and operation entrusted to US-affiliated structures for 90 years. Controlling this segment forms a de facto "external customs” on a nearly 7,000 km section of the Chinese Middle Corridor to Europe.

Subsequently, the US seeks similar influence over the Russian North-South corridor, with Iran as the central node. The route has three main paths: through Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and across the Caspian. Two land segments already lie within American political and infrastructural influence. The Caspian route remains relatively autonomous, making pressure on Iran part of a systemic strategy to block the last uncontrolled link in Eurasian transit.

The US-Iran Issue Beyond Nuclear Concerns

Pressure on Iran extends beyond nuclear programs, human rights, or regional security. These narratives serve as political and media cover. The US interest lies in controlling flows-energy and transit. Controlling or neutralizing Iran allows Washington to limit sanctioned oil deliveries to China, leverage alternative Eurasian routes, and maintain dominance over maritime logistics under Western naval control.

US foreign policy shows that internal governance, corruption, human rights, or political regime type cease to matter once key economic levers fall under external control. Venezuela demonstrates this: once its oil and financial flows aligned with US influence, internal issues disappeared from Western discourse. Control over resources, not regime correction, became the priority.

The same applies to Iran. Once Washington controls its oil, port infrastructure, and transit routes, rhetoric on nuclear threat, authoritarianism, or regional destabilization loses relevance. Historical experience shows that with geoeconomic loyalty, ideological and moral claims quickly fade.

Nuclear Factor as Deterrence

Iran's nuclear program is publicly framed as an existential threat by the US and Israel. Yet strategic analysis shows that nuclear weapons serve as deterrence and political immunity, not instruments of attack. The Libya precedent demonstrates the dangers of disarmament, while North Korea illustrates how nuclear capability shields a state from military intervention. Iran's program represents rational survival within a system dictated by the US and Europe.

Conclusion: Geoeconomics Over Ideology

The US-Iran confrontation reveals that rhetoric of peace, security, and stabilization masks pragmatic geoeconomic calculation. Control over resources, logistics, and transit nodes drives US strategy. Military force, diplomacy, and sanctions act as tools to shape markets and supply routes. Political regimes matter only insofar as they integrate into this system. Iran exemplifies this reality: conflict revolves around controlling a critical logistics node, not ideology or morality.

For ordinary people, including residents in potential strike zones like Israel, understanding this geostrategic logic does not reduce personal risk or make life safer. Modern geopolitics prioritizes state interests and strategic centers of power over individual lives. Resistance brands states as threats; compliance legitimizes them regardless of ideology or history. Iran is no exception: this conflict reflects control over a strategic node that shapes Eurasian supply chains.

In this struggle, there are no sentiments, permanent allies, or moral obligations-only interests measured in figures, routes, and infrastructure. Loud declarations of peace and security often conceal cold calculation. Understanding this helps grasp the real drivers behind conflicts shaping the global geoeconomic order.

From a personal perspective: for ordinary people living in potential zones of retaliation, including Israel, this understanding does not make life calmer or safer. Recognizing that conflicts form from cold calculation rather than moral considerations does not reduce personal risk or eliminate concern for oneself and loved ones. Yet this reflects the reality of modern geopolitics: state and strategic interests largely disregard the fate of ordinary people, irrespective of country, citizenship, or political views.