The Times of London went to town on Sept. 1, publishing an article and an editorial on the effectiveness of the U.S. “Economic Outcast” operation against Iran announced DATE by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The message of both is summed up by the headline of the editorial: “U.S. Should Intensify Economic Pressure on Iran.”
Bringing down “the Iranian regime” by economic sanctions “is a long shot,” the London Times argues, since “anything less than impending starvation” would not create an uprising strong enough to bring down the IRGC. How the Iranian population could be reduced to such “impending starvation” is not spelled out, but the British empire has a well-documented expertise in starving millions of their colonial subjects (or would-be subjects) to death.
While Iran may have, in fact, the ability to withstand “near-total economic collapse,” Donald Trump must continue “ramping up sanctions,” The Times pronounces. London is worried that Trump, facing the pressures of the midterm elections, might accept the offer by “pragmatists” in the Iranian regime such as President Pezeshkian that the conflict be settled by returning to the terms of the June 17 Memorandum of Understanding which the Trump administration signed with Iran, without requiring the IRGC be dismantled. Thus, their orders:
“Mr Trump should not agree to easing sanctions on anything but the strictest terms, including the unfettered passage of ships through the strait. He himself is under pressure as congressional midterm elections approach and diesel and gasoline prices remain high…. But that is no excuse to go soft on the IRGC. No sanctions are perfect but Iran is clearly feeling the pressure. The more sensible voices in the regime seek to relax it. All the more reason, for now, to turn it up.”
Otherwise, this august “newspaper of record” plays up in the accompanying article that UK interests (Lloyd’s List is one named) have come around to accept U.S. claims that a “significant amount of oil” is being snuck out through the Strait of Hormuz each night in 50-60 tankers owned by oil companies, and the amount is “probably not as inflated” as first thought. However, no evidence for that claim is provided other than British “experts” opining.
