ANALYSIS: Sanctions on Mojtaba Khamenei, hitting the wallet of Iranian power

A financial front opened in parallel with the military front

While American strikes continue to hit military and nuclear targets across Iran, Washington has opened a second front, less visible but just as strategic: the financial front. On July 10, 2026, the American Treasury Department announced new sanctions targeting a network directly linked to Mojtaba Khamenei, the man widely seen as the likely successor to Iran's supreme leader, along with thirteen other individuals and entities.

This decision, announced in the middle of an already explosive week that saw the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and a new wave of American strikes on roughly 140 targets, according to the CENTCOM statement, illustrates a deliberate strategy: hitting the Iranian regime simultaneously on the military terrain and on the financial terrain that keeps it alive.

Money is the fuel of every prolonged war. Sanctioning the network of the man who could soon lead Iran is not a symbolic gesture, it is an attempt to cut off the actual resources that keep this regime capable of fighting.

Why this financial dimension deserves as much attention as the missiles

Media coverage of this conflict has largely focused on strikes, closures of the strait, and troop movements, while the financial dimension of the confrontation, though decisive over the long term, receives far less sustained attention. This imbalance in coverage does a disservice to full public understanding of the strategy actually deployed by Washington against Tehran.

Yet it is often on this financial terrain, more discreet but more durable, that the true outcome of a prolonged confrontation between a great power and an authoritarian regime is decided, as history has already shown on several occasions against other sanctioned regimes.

A statement built on precise, documented allegations

The Treasury Department's statement, issued on July 10, describes a network of exchange houses moving billions of dollars every year on behalf of already-sanctioned Iranian banks, with direct links to individuals close to Mojtaba Khamenei. This precision in the statement's language, naming exchange houses and providing an order of financial magnitude, reflects a methodical American investigation rather than an improvised political gesture.

Thirteen individuals and entities, in addition to Mojtaba Khamenei himself, are directly named in this new round of sanctions, a scale that shows Washington is targeting an entire ecosystem rather than a single isolated figure within the Iranian financial system.

Naming thirteen additional names alongside Mojtaba Khamenei sends a clear message: the target is not one man, it is an entire financial architecture built specifically to circumvent sanctions and fund a hostile regime's activities.

The precise language choices in the statement

The Treasury's statement carefully avoids attributing direct political intentions to Mojtaba Khamenei himself, sticking to documented financial allegations, a legal precision that strengthens the credibility of the sanctions imposed against a possible legal challenge to their validity.

This methodological rigor in the statement's drafting deserves to be highlighted: it is easy to accuse a sanctioned regime of every possible wrong, it is much harder, and much more useful for long-term credibility, to build a case on precise and verifiable financial facts.

An economic empire beyond simple military structures

The network targeted by these new sanctions is directly linked to the economic structures of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, an organization that controls immense swaths of the Iranian economy well beyond its purely military functions. This economic integration allows the Corps to generate revenue largely independent of Iran's official state budget.

Understanding this financial architecture is essential to grasp why targeted sanctions, rather than generalized measures against the entire Iranian economy, represent the most effective strategy to durably weaken the regime's real financial capabilities.

Hitting the IRGC's wallet is sometimes more effective than hitting its arsenals: the money financing domestic repression and regional militias is, in the final analysis, the real fuel of this power structure.

Exchange houses, the weak link Washington is exploiting

Exchange houses named in the Treasury's statement serve as intermediaries between already-sanctioned Iranian banks and the international financial system, allowing prohibited transactions to continue through legal gray zones. It is precisely this weak link that the new American sanctions seek to durably close.

This targeted approach against the intermediaries themselves, rather than solely against the banks already under sanctions, illustrates a more sophisticated American strategy that has evolved considerably since the early rounds of sanctions imposed on Iran decades ago.

A calculated announcement, not a coincidence

The timing of this sanctions announcement, right in the middle of a week marked by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and new American strikes, does not appear to be a coincidence. This simultaneity reflects a deliberate coordination between the military and financial dimensions of American strategy against Tehran.

This coordinated timing sends a clear signal to the Iranian regime: every additional military provocation, such as the closure of the strait or attacks on regional bases, will be met not only with military strikes but also with new financial measures targeting the resources that keep this regime capable of continuing the confrontation.

There is a strategic elegance in this dual response, military and financial, launched simultaneously. It shows a Washington capable of thinking beyond the next missile, toward the actual resources that sustain a prolonged war effort.

A strategy that spans the entire timeline of the conflict

Since the start of this conflict in February 2026, Washington has multiplied rounds of financial sanctions in parallel with its military strikes, a sustained pace that illustrates a long-term strategy rather than a series of isolated reactions to specific Iranian provocations.

This strategic consistency over several months deserves to be recognized: it is far easier to launch a single spectacular round of sanctions than to maintain sustained financial pressure over an extended period, which requires considerable investigative and diplomatic resources.

A financial system already under considerable strain

The Iranian economy, already weakened by decades of accumulated sanctions, suffers additional consequences from this new round of financial measures, notably through increased difficulty accessing the international financial system for transactions that had until now managed to circumvent existing restrictions.

These concrete economic consequences translate into tangible difficulties for the regime in financing its regional military operations, its domestic repression apparatus, and the reconstruction of installations damaged by Western strikes, notably at Pickaxe Mountain and Parchin.

Every additional financial sanction is a brick removed from the wall that allows this regime to finance its wars, both external and internal. It is a slow strategy, but a strategy that works over the long term.

An economic cost that Tehran tries to minimize publicly

Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, denounced these new sanctions as a violation of the Islamabad memorandum signed on June 17, a public reaction that itself confirms the real impact of these financial measures on the regime's political calculations.

This vocal Iranian protest, rather than silent indifference, is itself an indirect indicator of the effectiveness of this financial strategy: a regime truly unaffected by sanctions would have far less reason to publicly denounce them with such insistence.

An unprecedented gesture in the history of American sanctions

Directly sanctioning a man widely considered the probable successor to Iran's supreme leader constitutes an unprecedented gesture in the history of American financial measures against Tehran. This decision sends a message that goes well beyond the strictly financial dimension of the sanctions themselves.

This symbolic dimension deserves to be underlined: Washington is signaling that no future Iranian leader, whatever his eventual title, will be spared from targeted financial pressure as long as he remains associated with networks financing hostile activities against Western interests.

Sanctioning a future supreme leader before he even officially takes power sends an unambiguous message: there will be no honeymoon period, no grace period, for whoever leads this regime after Khamenei.

The political risk of this symbolic strategy

This strategy nonetheless carries a political risk: it could reinforce, within certain segments of the Iranian population and regime, a narrative of Western aggression against the very legitimacy of Iranian institutions, rather than against the specific individuals responsible for documented financial wrongdoing.

This risk, however real, must be weighed against the strategic benefit of maintaining constant pressure on the individual most likely to shape Iranian policy over the coming years, at a decisive moment for the country's political future.

A pattern of sanctions that predates the current conflict

The American Treasury Department has already sanctioned several individuals close to the Khamenei family over the past decades, notably for embezzlement of public funds intended for Iranian elites, according to several reports on previous sanctions rounds. This new measure against Mojtaba Khamenei's network thus fits within an already well-established pattern of American financial pressure.

This historical continuity in American strategy demonstrates that these sanctions are not an improvised reaction to the current military conflict, but rather the continuation of a financial pressure campaign that predates the outbreak of hostilities in February 2026.

This is not a new strategy invented for this war, it is the continuation of years of patient financial work aimed at exposing the corruption at the heart of a regime that presents itself publicly as guided by religious virtue.

What distinguishes this round from previous ones

What distinguishes this new round of sanctions from previous ones is above all its timing, directly integrated with the current military escalation, as well as its explicit target: a man positioned to become the country's next supreme leader rather than a more peripheral figure in the regime's structures.

This evolution in strategy reflects a more mature American approach to the Iranian file, capable of combining historical financial investigation with the current strategic context of open military conflict.

Gulf financial intermediaries under increased scrutiny

Financial intermediaries operating in several Gulf countries now find themselves under heightened scrutiny, fearing being associated, even indirectly, with the sanctioned network linked to Mojtaba Khamenei. This heightened caution is slowing certain legitimate commercial flows in the region, a side effect American decision-makers consider acceptable given the strategic objective pursued.

This regional caution illustrates the deterrent effect that goes beyond the narrowly targeted individuals: even financial actors with no direct connection to the sanctioned network prefer to exercise excessive caution rather than risk indirect exposure to secondary American sanctions.

The true power of a well-targeted sanction is not measured solely by its direct impact on those named, but by the chilling effect it produces on everyone else who might have been tempted to do business with them.

An additional complication for regional mediation

These financial sanctions further complicate the already delicate task of regional mediators, notably Oman, who must now navigate an increasingly restrictive financial environment while trying to negotiate practical arrangements on shipping traffic and frozen assets in Doha.

This additional complexity illustrates how the financial and diplomatic dimensions of this conflict are now deeply intertwined, making any comprehensive resolution of the crisis considerably more complex than a purely military or purely diplomatic settlement would be.

A strategy that extends beyond the bilateral relationship with Iran

This financial sanctions strategy against Tehran fits within a broader American approach to using economic tools against every regime hostile to the liberal international order, including Russia in the context of its aggression against Ukraine, and increasingly China on strategic technology issues.

This global consistency in the use of economic sanctions as a tool of strategic pressure illustrates a broader Western doctrine: money, and access to the international financial system, has become as important a weapon as conventional military force in confrontations with authoritarian regimes.

Zelensky has said it for Ukraine facing Russia, and the same logic applies here: sanctions alone will not stop tanks or missiles, but they weaken over time the ability of a hostile regime to sustain its war effort indefinitely.

A lesson in strategic coherence for the West

This coherence in the use of economic sanctions across multiple simultaneous confrontations, against Russia, Iran, and increasingly China, reflects a Western strategic maturity that deserves to be recognized, even as debates continue over the actual long-term effectiveness of these measures.

This strategic coherence must be maintained and strengthened, rather than fragmented into isolated regional approaches disconnected from the broader confrontation between the West and the network of authoritarian regimes hostile to the current international order.

A trilateral network that partly circumvents Western sanctions

Russia and North Korea maintain financial and commercial relationships with Iran that partly allow the circumvention of Western sanctions, notably through barter arrangements and alternative payment systems that bypass the traditional international financial system.

This trilateral network between sanctioned regimes illustrates the structural limits of a purely unilateral American sanctions strategy: as long as these alternative circuits remain functional, the total impact of financial sanctions on Tehran will remain necessarily partial.

Every sanctioned regime that helps another circumvent restrictions is proof that the true battle for the international order is not fought country by country, it is fought against an entire informal network of mutual support between authoritarian powers.

The need for a coordinated multilateral response

This reality demands a more coordinated Western response involving all democratic allies, rather than a purely American approach, to maximize the effectiveness of financial sanctions against this network of mutual support between regimes hostile to the liberal international order.

Without this broader coordination, notably with European and Asian allies, the effectiveness of these sanctions will remain limited by the ability of sanctioned regimes to rely on each other to circumvent individual restrictions imposed by any single Western power.

Sanctions that also strike ordinary citizens

Beyond their intended targets among Iranian elites, these financial sanctions also have indirect consequences on the daily life of ordinary Iranian citizens, through increased difficulty accessing certain imported goods and heightened inflation on basic necessities, according to several economic analyses of the cumulative impact of sanctions on Iran.

This human reality of sanctions deserves to be acknowledged honestly: even the most precisely targeted financial measures produce ripple effects that reach populations who have no real say over the strategic decisions made by their theocratic leaders.

We must be honest about the human cost of this financial war: even well-targeted sanctions eventually reach ordinary Iranian families, who bear a price they never chose to pay for decisions made far above their heads.

A necessary distinction between the regime and the people

This human reality does not invalidate the strategic necessity of maintaining financial pressure on the regime's real decision-makers, but it does demand that Western communication clearly distinguish between the targeted elites and the broader population, which deserves recognition as a victim rather than a co-responsible party in this confrontation.

This distinction, though sometimes difficult to maintain in political discourse, remains essential to preserving the moral legitimacy of a sanctions strategy that seeks to weaken a regime without collectively punishing an entire population for choices it did not make.

A patient strategy rather than a search for a quick victory

The pattern of these financial sanctions, sustained over several months and now extending to the regime's likely future leader, reveals an American strategy built for the long term rather than a search for rapid, decisive victory against the Iranian regime.

This strategic patience reflects a mature understanding of the nature of the confrontation with Tehran: a theocratic regime this deeply rooted in its state and military structures will not collapse under a single blow, however powerful, but can be durably weakened by sustained pressure maintained over years.

Real strategic victories rarely come from a single spectacular blow. They come from the patient accumulation of pressure applied consistently over years, exactly what this sanctions campaign against Tehran represents.

A strategy that must survive political cycles

The main challenge of this patient strategy lies in its ability to survive American political cycles and shifts in international attention, since a sustained sanctions strategy loses much of its effectiveness if it is abandoned or weakened by a change in political priorities in Washington.

This need for continuity across political administrations represents one of the greatest structural challenges facing any long-term American strategy against a regime as resilient as Tehran's.

A convergence of interests without direct involvement

Israel, directly engaged in military strikes against Iranian nuclear capabilities, benefits indirectly from this American financial pressure strategy, which weakens the regime's overall ability to finance both its nuclear program and the regional militias that threaten Israeli security.

This convergence of interests between the American financial strategy and Israeli security objectives illustrates the coherence of the broader Western approach against Tehran, even though Israel is not the entity directly imposing these particular financial sanctions.

Israel does not need to sign the sanctions documents itself to benefit from their effect. Every dollar removed from the regime's financial network is one less dollar available to finance the militias that threaten Israeli security every single day.

An intelligence-sharing relationship that reinforces this strategy

Israeli intelligence services closely collaborate with their American counterparts on the Iranian financial file, sharing information on networks and intermediaries that helps refine the precision of future American sanctions against the regime's real financial architecture.

This intelligence cooperation, discreet but constant, constitutes an essential pillar of the overall effectiveness of the Western financial strategy against Tehran, well beyond what public statements from either government tend to reveal.

A strategy tested against other hostile regimes

The strategy of personally sanctioning key figures of an authoritarian regime, rather than solely targeting the state as an abstract entity, has already been deployed against other hostile regimes in the past, including senior officials close to Vladimir Putin since the start of the Russian aggression against Ukraine.

This historical precedent demonstrates that this personalized approach can produce tangible effects over the long term, notably by restricting the ability of targeted individuals to travel internationally and manage their personal assets outside their own country's borders.

Putin's inner circle has learned, painfully, that personal sanctions have real teeth. Mojtaba Khamenei and his network are about to learn the same lesson, and this convergence of strategy against hostile regimes is no accident.

The limits of this comparison with the Russian case

This comparison with the Russian case nonetheless has its limits: the Iranian financial system, already isolated for decades by successive sanctions, offers fewer immediately exploitable international assets than the Russian financial system did before the sanctions imposed after 2022.

This structural difference partly explains why the effectiveness of these new sanctions against Mojtaba Khamenei's network could prove more limited than that observed against senior Russian officials, given the already advanced degree of Iranian financial isolation prior to this new round of measures.

A strategy for the long haul against a resilient regime

These sanctions against Mojtaba Khamenei's network confirm that the confrontation between the West and the Iranian regime will not be resolved solely by military strikes against nuclear and military installations. The financial dimension of this conflict, though less visible in daily headlines, will likely outlast the most spectacular episodes of the current military escalation.

Maintaining this financial pressure, coordinated with America's democratic allies and sustained across political cycles, represents an essential complement to military strikes in the broader Western strategy of durably weakening this theocratic regime's capacity for harm.

What comes next for this financial front

How this financial front evolves in the coming months, particularly as Mojtaba Khamenei's succession becomes more concrete, will offer a crucial indicator of the actual effectiveness of this sustained economic pressure strategy against one of the most resilient regimes in the contemporary international system.

Missiles make headlines, sanctions make history. Long after this military escalation fades from the front page, it will be this patient financial siege that decides whether Tehran's theocratic power structure survives intact or slowly starves for lack of resources.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. I claim analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under Sources, never here.

Primary source families used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

Secondary source families: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under Sources.

Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a critical, contextual synthesis based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.