Inside the Trump administration, a quiet debate is underway: is the bombing campaign against Iran actually less effective than the economic war that barely anyone is talking about?
Senior US officials told Axios that sanctions and a naval blockade are doing more damage to Iran than the nightly airstrikes that have dominated headlines for two weeks. ‘Iran is more scared of Treasury than the War Department,’ one official said.
The argument is straightforward. Bombs can destroy military targets, but sanctions squeeze the entire economy. Iran’s oil exports have been choked by a US naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Its access to international banking has been cut. The rial has plummeted. Inflation is rampant. And unlike a bombing campaign, which runs out of targets and munitions, economic pressure can be sustained indefinitely.
The officials acknowledged that sanctions take longer to produce results than military strikes. But they argued that the long-term pressure could ultimately force Tehran to negotiate on terms favorable to Washington: something the bombing campaign has not achieved.
The debate comes as the US has paused its airstrikes on Iran. Military officials told Trump that the Pentagon was running low on pre-selected targets and that the bombing had reached the limits of its effectiveness. Admiral Brad Cooper, the overall US commander in the Middle East, advised halting the campaign.
Iran has signaled it will halt its own retaliatory strikes as long as the US does the same, but a senior Iranian official told Reuters there is ‘more skepticism than optimism’ about the pause, describing it as ‘tactical rather than genuine.’
The sanctions-first approach carries its own risks. The blockade has pushed global oil prices higher, hurting consumers and giving Trump political problems at home. And sanctions are a blunt instrument: they hurt ordinary Iranians more than the regime, potentially strengthening hardliners who argue that Iran has nothing to lose by holding out.
But for an administration that has spent billions of dollars on munitions in a war with no clear end, the appeal of a cheaper, less visible weapon is obvious. As one official put it: the Treasury Department’s tools are quieter than the Pentagon’s: and may prove more durable.