January 14, 2026
Nigel Green
China remains Iran’s largest trading partner, which means any serious attempt to penalize commercial ties with Tehran quickly becomes a direct test of the US–China relationship and the fragile equilibrium that has only recently begun to re-emerge after years of trade conflict.
The interim understanding, framed widely as a “truce”, reached late last year offered a brief pause after a prolonged period of escalating tariffs, export controls and retaliatory measures.
Washington eased some penalties, Beijing suspended restrictions on rare earth exports and businesses on both sides cautiously began to rebuild confidence that had eroded in recent years. This progress now faces renewed strain as tariff threats once again move to the center of policy discussion.
A proposed 25% tariff represents far more than a technical adjustment. It signals a return to escalation as a default approach, marking a shift away from trade policy as a negotiating tool and toward its use as an instrument of confrontation.
Markets recognize what tends to follow when that line is crossed. Beijing’s immediate warnings against unilateral sanctions reflect an understanding that tariff threats rarely remain isolated gestures. They harden into retaliation, and retaliation in turn reshapes the entire landscape of economic relations.
Agriculture would feel the impact first. American soybean exports to China never fully recovered from earlier trade battles, and US farmers learned how quickly access to foreign markets disappears when politics enters supply chains.
A renewed cycle of tariffs risks closing doors that only recently began to reopen, while sending a clear signal to producers that stability in export markets can no longer be taken for granted.
The implications, however, extend well beyond soybeans. Technology, energy, manufacturing and logistics all depend on predictable trade flows and stable policy frameworks.
Tariff threats tied to Iran-linked commerce place companies in an impossible position, forcing choices between commercial survival and compliance with shifting political demands.
Such conditions discourage long-term investment, accelerate the fragmentation of supply chains and weaken the foundations of global growth.
The strategy behind the threat rests on maximum pressure. While the stated objective centers on Tehran, the collateral effects spread rapidly. A policy designed to isolate Iran ends up straining relations with China, unsettling emerging markets and injecting uncertainty into energy prices and currency movements.
Energy markets already reflect that tension. Iran’s role in global oil supply gives every policy signal additional weight, and when tariff threats layer on top of existing sanctions, risk premiums rise across commodities.
Higher energy costs then filter into inflation, tighten financial conditions, and complicate economic planning from Asia to Europe.
Diplomacy once provided a buffer against that cycle. Trade agreements created off-ramps and negotiations allowed disputes to cool before they hardened into prolonged standoffs. Recent signals point in a different direction.
Tariffs increasingly move from bargaining chips to default responses, and when that happens trade policy stops generating leverage and starts generating instability.
China faces its own difficult calculation. Accepting US pressure on Iran risks appearing weak at home, while resisting invites economic consequences abroad.
Either path carries political costs, which explains why Beijing’s warning of countermeasures resonates as more than rhetorical posturing. China’s leadership rarely absorbs what it perceives as coercion without responding.
Washington confronts a parallel dilemma. Retreating from tariff threats risks appearing indecisive, while pressing ahead risks reopening a trade conflict that already inflicted deep damage on global growth.
Markets respond to that uncertainty by demanding higher risk premiums and pulling back from long-term commitments, reinforcing the very instability that policymakers often claim to be trying to avoid.
Investors recognize familiar patterns in these developments. Earlier cycles of tariff escalation followed the same trajectory, beginning with measures framed as limited and defensive before giving way to rounds of retaliation that steadily raised barriers and deepened mistrust.
The outcome delivered higher prices, fractured supply chains and lasting erosion of confidence between major economies.
The present moment carries similar danger. A 25% tariff threat acts as an accelerant, creating momentum that pushes all sides toward firmer positions and narrower room for compromise.
Trade conflicts rarely remain confined to their original targets. They expand across sectors, regions and alliances, reshaping the global economic landscape in ways that are difficult to reverse.
Asia stands especially exposed. Supply chains thread through Chinese factories, Southeast Asian ports and energy corridors that depend on stable global trade rules.
Any renewed confrontation between Washington and Beijing sends immediate shockwaves through regional growth, currencies and capital flows, with consequences that extend far beyond the two countries at the center of the dispute.
Political leaders often underestimate how quickly confidence evaporates under such conditions. Markets move faster than diplomacy and companies freeze investment plans long before negotiations resume.
Financial conditions tighten ahead of formal policy changes, reinforcing the sense that uncertainty itself has become a defining feature of the global economy.
Trump’s message remains consistent: pressure defines his approach. Whether that pressure delivers strategic gains remains uncertain, but the risk of reopening wounds that global trade spent years trying to heal feels far more concrete.
Trade wars leave long shadows, and businesses respond by diversifying supply chains and reducing exposure to geopolitical flashpoints.
Those adjustments take time and carry costs that consumers ultimately bear through higher prices and fewer choices. The world learned painful lessons from earlier rounds of tariff escalation. Those lessons now face a fresh decisive test.
Nigel Green
Threatened 25% tax on all
countries that trade with Iran is a deliberate shot across China’s bow
Donald Trump’s latest threat to
impose 25% tariffs on countries trading with Iran carries consequences that
extend far beyond Tehran. The moment Washington links Iran policy to global
trade enforcement, the focus inevitably shifts to Beijing.
China remains Iran’s largest trading partner, which means any serious attempt to penalize commercial ties with Tehran quickly becomes a direct test of the US–China relationship and the fragile equilibrium that has only recently begun to re-emerge after years of trade conflict.
The interim understanding, framed widely as a “truce”, reached late last year offered a brief pause after a prolonged period of escalating tariffs, export controls and retaliatory measures.
Washington eased some penalties, Beijing suspended restrictions on rare earth exports and businesses on both sides cautiously began to rebuild confidence that had eroded in recent years. This progress now faces renewed strain as tariff threats once again move to the center of policy discussion.
A proposed 25% tariff represents far more than a technical adjustment. It signals a return to escalation as a default approach, marking a shift away from trade policy as a negotiating tool and toward its use as an instrument of confrontation.
Markets recognize what tends to follow when that line is crossed. Beijing’s immediate warnings against unilateral sanctions reflect an understanding that tariff threats rarely remain isolated gestures. They harden into retaliation, and retaliation in turn reshapes the entire landscape of economic relations.
Agriculture would feel the impact first. American soybean exports to China never fully recovered from earlier trade battles, and US farmers learned how quickly access to foreign markets disappears when politics enters supply chains.
A renewed cycle of tariffs risks closing doors that only recently began to reopen, while sending a clear signal to producers that stability in export markets can no longer be taken for granted.
The implications, however, extend well beyond soybeans. Technology, energy, manufacturing and logistics all depend on predictable trade flows and stable policy frameworks.
Tariff threats tied to Iran-linked commerce place companies in an impossible position, forcing choices between commercial survival and compliance with shifting political demands.
Such conditions discourage long-term investment, accelerate the fragmentation of supply chains and weaken the foundations of global growth.
The strategy behind the threat rests on maximum pressure. While the stated objective centers on Tehran, the collateral effects spread rapidly. A policy designed to isolate Iran ends up straining relations with China, unsettling emerging markets and injecting uncertainty into energy prices and currency movements.
Energy markets already reflect that tension. Iran’s role in global oil supply gives every policy signal additional weight, and when tariff threats layer on top of existing sanctions, risk premiums rise across commodities.
Higher energy costs then filter into inflation, tighten financial conditions, and complicate economic planning from Asia to Europe.
Diplomacy once provided a buffer against that cycle. Trade agreements created off-ramps and negotiations allowed disputes to cool before they hardened into prolonged standoffs. Recent signals point in a different direction.
Tariffs increasingly move from bargaining chips to default responses, and when that happens trade policy stops generating leverage and starts generating instability.
China faces its own difficult calculation. Accepting US pressure on Iran risks appearing weak at home, while resisting invites economic consequences abroad.
Either path carries political costs, which explains why Beijing’s warning of countermeasures resonates as more than rhetorical posturing. China’s leadership rarely absorbs what it perceives as coercion without responding.
Washington confronts a parallel dilemma. Retreating from tariff threats risks appearing indecisive, while pressing ahead risks reopening a trade conflict that already inflicted deep damage on global growth.
Markets respond to that uncertainty by demanding higher risk premiums and pulling back from long-term commitments, reinforcing the very instability that policymakers often claim to be trying to avoid.
Investors recognize familiar patterns in these developments. Earlier cycles of tariff escalation followed the same trajectory, beginning with measures framed as limited and defensive before giving way to rounds of retaliation that steadily raised barriers and deepened mistrust.
The outcome delivered higher prices, fractured supply chains and lasting erosion of confidence between major economies.
The present moment carries similar danger. A 25% tariff threat acts as an accelerant, creating momentum that pushes all sides toward firmer positions and narrower room for compromise.
Trade conflicts rarely remain confined to their original targets. They expand across sectors, regions and alliances, reshaping the global economic landscape in ways that are difficult to reverse.
Asia stands especially exposed. Supply chains thread through Chinese factories, Southeast Asian ports and energy corridors that depend on stable global trade rules.
Any renewed confrontation between Washington and Beijing sends immediate shockwaves through regional growth, currencies and capital flows, with consequences that extend far beyond the two countries at the center of the dispute.
Political leaders often underestimate how quickly confidence evaporates under such conditions. Markets move faster than diplomacy and companies freeze investment plans long before negotiations resume.
Financial conditions tighten ahead of formal policy changes, reinforcing the sense that uncertainty itself has become a defining feature of the global economy.
Trump’s message remains consistent: pressure defines his approach. Whether that pressure delivers strategic gains remains uncertain, but the risk of reopening wounds that global trade spent years trying to heal feels far more concrete.
Trade wars leave long shadows, and businesses respond by diversifying supply chains and reducing exposure to geopolitical flashpoints.
Those adjustments take time and carry costs that consumers ultimately bear through higher prices and fewer choices. The world learned painful lessons from earlier rounds of tariff escalation. Those lessons now face a fresh decisive test.
No comments:
Post a Comment