# Trump’s New Tariffs and Asset Threats Put Fresh Economic Pressure on Russia and Iran

*Friday, July 24, 2026 at 12:05 PM UTC — Hamer Intelligence Services Desk*

**Published**: 2026-07-24T12:05:13.493Z (2h ago)
**Category**: geopolitics | **Region**: Global
**Importance**: 7/10
**Sources**: OSINT
**Permalink**: https://hamerintel.com/data/articles/12317.md
**Source**: https://hamerintel.com/summaries

---

**Deck**: U.S. President Donald Trump has imposed new tariffs of up to 12.5% on a wide range of imports, including Russian goods for the first time, and warned that damage to shipping in the Iran confrontation will be paid for with Iranian funds under U.S. control. The twin steps pull trade tools and frozen assets deeper into Washington’s playbook against Moscow and Tehran.

Washington is tightening the economic screws on two of its main geopolitical adversaries at once, as President Donald Trump rolls out new tariffs that for the first time cover Russian goods and signals that Iranian assets under U.S. control will be tapped to pay for damage in the escalating confrontation at sea.

According to U.S. and Ukrainian reporting on 24 July, Trump has introduced a new round of import duties ranging roughly from 10% to 12.5% on goods from multiple countries after a previous tariff package was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court as unlawful. Notably, the new schedule includes a 12.5% rate on products from Russia — a country that was exempt from the first wave of global tariffs. That shift effectively brings Russia into a wider U.S. tariff war at the same time it is under extensive financial sanctions related to its invasion of Ukraine.

Separately, Trump announced that, until further notice, any damage caused to ships, cargoes or related assets in the mounting conflict with Iran would be covered using Iranian money that the United States “possesses and controls.” The remark, delivered against the backdrop of U.S.–Iran strikes and counter‑strikes in the region, appears to refer to frozen or otherwise restricted Iranian funds held under U.S. jurisdiction or influence. While operational details were not immediately spelled out, the message suggests a willingness to treat those assets as a pool for compensation in what the administration frames as a just war with Tehran.

For exporters and importers, the tariff move means another rapid shift in the cost structure of doing business with the United States. Companies that had begun to recalibrate after the Supreme Court ruling now face a fresh layer of legal and financial complexity, as they assess which goods are covered, how long the levies might last, and whether alternative suppliers can be found. For Russian producers already constrained by sanctions, the added duties are less about blocking access to the U.S. market — which is already limited — and more about signaling that Moscow will be treated like other priority targets in Washington’s broader trade fight.

On the Iranian front, the idea of using controlled Iranian funds to pay for maritime damage carries direct consequences for shipowners, insurers and cargo interests operating near the conflict zone. If the U.S. can credibly promise compensation from those assets, it may ease some commercial anxiety around sending ships into contested waters, though few operational guarantees have been made public. For Iran, such a move would be seen as a unilateral reallocation of money it considers its own, further deepening a sense in Tehran that financial tools are being weaponized far beyond traditional sanctions.

Strategically, tying tariffs and frozen assets into explicit geopolitical campaigns underscores how deeply economics and security are now intertwined in U.S. statecraft. Tariffs that might once have been justified on narrow trade or labor grounds are now rolled out alongside security arguments, as seen in the administration’s invocation of “forced labor” in its dispute with the European Union — a rationale EU officials, including Kaja Kallas, have publicly rejected as unfounded in Europe’s case. The result is a trade landscape where political risk rivals comparative advantage in shaping supply chains.

The combination also sends a message to other countries watching Washington’s disputes with Moscow and Tehran: access to the U.S. market and financial system comes with growing expectations about alignment on security issues, and deviations may invite measures that blur the line between sanctions and tariffs.

The next markers will include the publication and legal testing of the full tariff list in U.S. courts, any retaliatory measures from targeted countries, and concrete steps by U.S. agencies to allocate Iranian funds for maritime damages. Commercial shipping patterns in the Gulf and Black Sea, along with Russian export data on affected goods, will provide early signals of how much economic weight these political decisions actually carry.