Trump flags claims US bank helped skirt Iran sanctions
US president Donald Trump has spotlighted whistleblower allegations that Standard Chartered Bank’s New York branch moved billions of dollars to entities linked to Iran and Hezbollah.
US president Donald Trump has spotlighted whistleblower allegations that Standard Chartered Bank’s New York branch moved billions of dollars to entities linked to Iran and Hezbollah.
Sharing a report from The Gateway Pundit on Truth Social Wednesday, the president cited claims that at least $9.6 billion in illicit payments were cleared through the branch to names on the US Treasury’s sanctions list, including designated terrorist organizations.
The allegations, first published on July 22 and updated with new material from bank insiders, center on transactions said to involve Euro African Group Ltd—controlled by Hezbollah financier Mohammad Bazzi—alongside Koussani Steel, Kuwait Automotive Group, Bank of Algeria, Iranian oil trading intermediaries, and other sanctioned entities.
“With all oil trade required to be in US dollar currency, China is using SCB and its NYC branch to buy Iranian oil in US dollars,” the story reads.
The Trump administration has imposed a sweeping sanctions campaign on Iran aimed at curbing its oil sales network, while tightening enforcement measures to cut off Tehran’s access to the US financial system and global banking channels.
In June, however, Trump announced on social media that China could now buy Iranian oil — a shift from his previous hardline stance.
China remains the only major buyer of Iranian crude, taking in the vast majority of Tehran’s exports. Despite years of sanctions and stepped-up enforcement, the flow of oil to Chinese refiners has not been halted, with shipments often routed through intermediaries or mislabeled to disguise their origin.
According to The Gateway Pundit, the case is supported by 40,000 internal emails containing foreign exchange trade records.
The report alleges that senior officials, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, were briefed on the matter in early 2024 but took no action.
Trump, in his post, called James “a disgrace” but offered no further details on what action he believed should follow.
“We stated to the (US) negotiating party that we are willing to build trust, but it seems as though they have pretended to be asleep,” Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref said on Tuesday—the clearest suggestion yet that reluctance may be coming from the United States.
“Even direct negotiations can happen,” he added, under balanced conditions. “The Islamic Republic’s approach to negotiations is in line with what the people want.”
The remarks followed Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takhtravanchi’s statement a day earlier that Iran was prepared to limit its nuclear program if US sanctions were lifted.
There was no public response by Washington.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio along with foreign ministers of France, Germany and Britain set an informal end-August deadline for a new nuclear deal, warning failure would mean triggering the so-called "snapback" of UN sanctions.
‘No rush’
But no response came from Washington. President Donald Trump told reporters in mid-July that the urgency to engage with Iran had vanished after US strikes in late June.
“They would like to talk. I’m in no rush to talk because we obliterated their site,” Trump told reporters mid July, implying he was content to let pressure build.
European officials have warned Tehran that unless it fully cooperates with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the “trigger mechanism” for snapback could be activated, restoring UN sanctions this fall.
Red lines
Despite the conciliatory gestures, Iran’s red lines remain intact.
Takhtravanchi told Japan’s Kyodo News this week that Tehran would not relinquish what it called its right to uranium enrichment.
Officials also stressed that Monday’s visit by IAEA Deputy Director General Massimo Aparo was unrelated to inspections, and Tehran continues to bar IAEA chief Rafael Grossi, accusing him of complicity in the recent attacks.
Reformist daily Arman Melli called Takhtravanchi’s offer “a new prudent decision regarding the nuclear dossier,” noting Iran’s aim to avoid the trigger mechanism while securing sanctions relief to ease its deep financial crisis.
Hardline outlets, meanwhile, have expressed anger at the IAEA and the UN Security Council’s failure to condemn the strikes, and domestic critics warn that opening talks with Washington could be politically costly.
Divisions and outlook
While the Foreign Ministry and its diplomats remain cautious about re-engaging the West, the Presidential Office appears more eager to pursue direct negotiations.
Vahideh Karimi, political editor of Shargh, warned that the combination of Iran’s tentative flexibility and Washington’s hesitation could prolong the stalemate, calling Takhtravanchi’s proposal “realistic” but fragile.
She also pointed to Tehran’s missile program — repeatedly declared off-limits after the war with Israel — as a potential deal-breaker.
Others, like Ham Mihan columnist Majid Younesian, argue the balance of forces is shifting in Iran’s favor and that confrontation with the US and Europe must evolve.
“Change does not mean surrender, as hardliners claim. Not all problems need to be solved with guns, slogans, and provocations,” he wrote.
