The US introduces a broad secondary tariff on nations trading with Iran, escalating trade uncertainty and prompting corporations to reassess global supply chains amid geopolitical tensions and potential kinetic escalation.
On January 12, 2026, the White House announced a 25% “secondary tariff” on imports from any country that continues to trade with the Islamic Republic of Iran, a move that immediately transformed a geopolitical tactic into a potential jurisdictiona...
Continue Reading This Article
Enjoy this article as well as all of our content, including reports, news, tips and more.
By registering or signing into your SRM Today account, you agree to SRM Today's Terms of Use and consent to the processing of your personal information as described in our Privacy Policy.
The policy’s aim, according to administration messaging reported by major outlets, is to squeeze Tehran by forcing trading partners to choose between access to the US market and commercial relations with Iran. Critics and legal observers have noted the lack of clear statutory grounding, and several commentators have already flagged likely court challenges. According to AP, the measure is described domestically as leverage to end Iran’s violent suppression of protests, but international capitals from Beijing to New Delhi have warned of diplomatic and economic retaliation.
For corporate treasurers, M&A leads and investors, the practical implications are immediate and wide-ranging. The tariff converts what had been a tail geopolitical risk into a potentially material, recurring economic charge that must be integrated into regulatory disclosures and accounting judgements. The lead analysis underlines that SEC Form 10‑K disclosure requirements and IFRS impairment and expected credit loss frameworks (IFRS 36 and IFRS 9) compel firms to re-evaluate revenue sustainability, counterparty credit quality and asset valuations where Iran-linked trade is present. Industry data and surveys already pointed to trade uncertainty as a dominant business concern: Deloitte and survey respondents have repeatedly cited tariffs and trade negotiations as top operational risks for manufacturers, a context that amplifies the new measure’s impact.
Operationally, the tariff imposes a duty to map multi‑tier supplier networks. Exposure is not limited to direct importers; it includes suppliers of suppliers and end customers reliant on Iranian inputs. The White House’s broad phrasing, targeting “any country doing business with Iran”, creates a compliance burden that reaches deep into ERP systems, customs records and procurement flows. Legal trackers and sanctions monitors noted that more than 140 countries maintained some trade with Iran, though volumes vary widely. China remains Iran’s largest trading partner by value; Iran’s trade was reported at roughly $125 billion in 2024. India, Turkey, the UAE and others also have significant ties that will now be recalibrated against potential US penalties.
Capital markets reacted to the policy’s arrival against a backdrop of heightened military tempos. Reporting indicates the administration is simultaneously reviewing kinetic options against Iranian sites, raising the prospect of supply shocks. The lead analysis’s scenario framework, “Tariff Only,” “Tariff + Limited Strike,” and “Full Kinetic + Cyber Disruption”, is a practical template for stress testing. Under the tariff‑only scenario, EBITDA compression of 18–25% for exposed entities is plausible; a limited strike that removes 1–2 million barrels per day of refining capacity could push energy‑related margin risk toward 30% while a combined kinetic and cyber episode could trigger revenue shortfalls exceeding 40% and immediate liquidity strains. Refinery impairment risk is particularly acute: removal of downstream capacity would not only spike crude prices but create localised scarcity of middle distillates, with jet fuel and diesel in EMEA likely to see outsized price moves in a short window.
Credit and insurance markets are already pricing the new risk. Maritime, logistics and insurance sectors face immediate pressure as underwriters de‑risk tariff‑exposed cargoes and war‑risk and political‑risk premiums surge. Bond and credit analysts will need to factor potential downgrades where trade corridors tighten and shipping routes become less insurable. Financial institutions evaluating counterparties in India, Turkey and the UAE may move to lower ratings and tighten credit lines to reflect increased default and liquidity risk, particularly for corporates with material Iranian links.
Regulatory and disclosure implications are material. SEC‑regulated firms are being urged to disclose secondary‑sanction and tariff risk explicitly; silence or vague disclosure could attract enforcement scrutiny or shareholder litigation. Accounting standards require that companies consider the economic effects of new laws and foreseeable contingencies when estimating expected credit losses and testing asset impairment. M&A transactions must adopt deeper forensic diligence: revenue sources, supplier tiers and “kinetic impact” on geographically proximate assets are now central to valuation and indemnity design. The lead guidance recommends scenario modelling and contingent clauses that reflect tariff exposure and potential kinetic spillovers in the Gulf and adjacent states.
Treasury and risk‑management playbooks must be adjusted. Practical steps include accelerated mapping of order‑to‑cash flows, commodity and FX hedging to buffer price volatility, establishment of contingency credit lines, and consideration of infrastructure‑backed financing that isolates non‑Iranian operations. Cyber‑contingency planning, particularly SWIFT disruption simulations and strengthened payment‑system resilience, must be integrated into liquidity planning given the prospect of retaliatory digital attacks. The lead article’s guidance to maintain both short‑term and long‑dated liquidity committed to cover aggressive margin compression is consistent with best practice in political risk management.
The policy also creates strategic and political distortions. Several outlets have reported that Beijing warned it would take “all necessary measures” to protect its interests, while New Delhi has flagged potential damage to trade with the United States and investments such as Chabahar port. The risk of “cascading protectionism” is real: if major economies retaliate or if enforcement becomes selective, global supply chains and pricing power for US firms could be materially impaired. Observers have cautioned that selective carve‑outs or private channels for exemptions would produce a lobbying environment where political proximity, not market fundamentals, determines survival, a dynamic that would raise fairness and governance concerns.
ESG and compliance agendas will also be affected. Carbon‑intensity metrics may change as trade reroutes force longer transit times or different energy mixes. Investors who integrate ESG into risk assessments will increasingly insist on evidence that boards and management have mapped secondary‑sanction exposure and updated impairment and credit‑loss models accordingly. Failing to link ESG and sanctions risk could elevate reputational and regulatory exposure.
Finally, information scarcity within Iran complicates risk assessment. Media and analysts reported a near‑total internet blackout inside Iran at the policy’s outset, which reduces verifiable on‑the‑ground intelligence and increases reliance on high‑cost, human‑intelligence and partner‑government sources. The blackout amplifies the compliance burden: how to determine whether a trading partner is sufficiently disentangled from Iranian commerce when data trails are dark. That ambiguity converts compliance into a near‑binary political test rather than a purely technical exercise.
The new tariff is likely to remain contested in courts and on the diplomatic stage, and markets will continue to price a range of outcomes. For boards, the immediate priorities are clear: mandate comprehensive multi‑tier supply‑chain mapping, direct management to conduct scenario stress tests that incorporate tariff and kinetic outcomes, require accounting teams to revisit impairment and expected credit loss estimates under IFRS and SEC expectations, and ensure treasury holds sufficient liquidity to withstand severe margin compression. The policy’s ultimate economic effect will depend on enforcement mechanics, emergency exemptions and international responses, but for now it has re‑ordered the risk calculus for trade, energy and capital across multiple regions.
Source: Noah Wire Services
Subscribe to Industry Updates
