When the finance minister of the world's largest economy says the „harshest sanctions in history” are coming, that is not a threat. It is a schedule. Scott Bessent said it in front of the cameras, announced a Monday press conference with the specific measures, and added a sentence that leaves no room for interpretation: „Either you are with us or you are against us.”

The formula is not new. We heard it in 2001 too, and back then that sentence split the entire world into two camps within months. The difference is that this time nobody is asking for an army, but for a signature - who will stop buying Iranian oil and who will not.

Bessent describes a twin-track approach: a blockade plus a sanctions regime harsher than anything Tehran has endured so far. The goal, as he put it, is destabilising the Iranian regime - and economic pressure, he claims, should reduce the need for a large military operation. In other words: hunger works faster than bombs and does not require coffins at an airport.

China is the real addressee

The most interesting part is not about Iran. Asked about Chinese business ties with Tehran, Bessent said private conversations would be most effective, and immediately mentioned the number that explains everything: China gets 50 percent of its energy from the Persian Gulf region. That is not a remark, it is a reminder of who has whom by the throat.

Because sanctions without Beijing are a sheet of paper. Iran has lived under some form of economic restriction for almost half a century - without a break, ever since 1979 and the Islamic Revolution. If forty-seven years of sanctions did not topple the regime, what exactly is the forty-eighth expected to do?

The answer is that this time the target is not Iran alone, but everyone who trades with it. „Either you are with us or against us” is not addressed to Tehran - Tehran has been on the other side for a long time. It is addressed to everyone else, including those with no desire whatsoever to pick a side.

And the Balkans know that sentence by heart. Every time the big players fall out, the small ones get a questionnaire and a deadline. The question is not whether we are for or against - the question is why somebody else is making the decision again.