US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has issued a stark warning to the Islamic Republic, declaring that any damage Iran inflicts on Washington’s Gulf allies will be paid for with funds extracted from Iranian accounts held abroad. In a post on the social media platform X late Thursday, Bessent accused Tehran of playing a “zero‑sum game” and vowed that every attack launched by Iran would “only deepen the economic and financial consequences it faces.”
The remarks come as the fragile ceasefire between the United States and Iran enters its third month, with no permanent peace agreement in sight and tensions flaring across the Gulf.
The Treasury’s threat is built on the assumption that the United States has ready access to a substantial pool of Iranian funds. Yet the reality is far more modest. According to a detailed analysis by Al‑Monitor, the US currently has direct control over only about $2 billion in frozen Iranian assets. The vast majority of Iran’s foreign holdings, estimated at more than $100 billion are located in jurisdictions that do not recognise US jurisdiction, including approximately $20 billion in China, $7 billion in India, $6 billion in Iraq, and significant sums in Japan and the European Union.
While the Treasury could, in theory, attempt to seize Iranian funds held in third‑country banks, such a move would be fraught with legal and diplomatic complications. European allies have already shown reluctance to fully enforce US sanctions, and Beijing is unlikely to forfeit a strategic financial relationship with Tehran. Bessent’s statement is therefore best understood as a rhetorical weapon rather than a practical blueprint.
At the heart of Bessent’s warning is the newly created Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA), the Iranian state body established on May 5, 2026, to regulate maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. Since the US‑Israeli war broke out on February 28, Iran has effectively restricted access to the strategic waterway, which normally carries roughly a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas. The PGSA imposes tolls on commercial shipping, using a mix of fiat currency, digital assets, barter arrangements and even charitable donations to ensure safe passage.
The United States has described the system as “extortion” and has warned that any cooperation with the authority carries sanctions risks. By threatening to offset those tolls with seized Iranian funds, Washington is effectively trying to have it both ways: pretending that the strait is an international waterway while simultaneously blockading Iran’s own ports.
Bessent’s statement did not occur in a vacuum. It came on the same day that President Donald Trump threatened to launch “VERY HARD” new strikes on Iran and vowed to seize control of Kharg Island, the country’s primary oil export terminal. Within hours, Trump reversed himself, announcing that the planned strikes had been cancelled because “discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran have been brought to the highest level of Iranian leadership and approved.” The back and forth, which has become a hallmark of US‑Iran diplomacy under Trump, suggests that the White House is struggling to maintain a coherent strategy.
The war, now in its fourth month, has settled into a pattern. The ceasefire holds, but neither side is willing to make the concessions necessary for a permanent peace. Iran continues to demand the immediate release of its frozen assets, an end to Israeli attacks in Lebanon, and recognition of its control over the strait. Washington insists that Tehran must first agree to severe limitations on its nuclear programme. With both sides dug in, threats and counter threats have become a substitute for genuine progress.