New pragmatism in US maritime sanctions in International Shipping News 08/04/2026 A seminal shift in how the US utilises maritime sanctions has seen a move away from rigid, long-term policy towards a “deeply pragmatic” and often unpredictable approach designed to stabilise markets in real-time, according to sanctions expert. In a webinar hosted by the Baltic Exchange, Claire McCleskey, co-founder of Clarity Compliance Consulting and former head of the OFAC compliance division at the US Office of Terrorism & Financial Intelligence (TFI), explained that for several years, the maritime sector operated under a relatively cohesive international framework. Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the G7 oil price cap served as a cornerstone of multilateral cooperation. However, the ‘solace of equivalence’ between the EU, US, and UK regimes has recently vanished. Last autumn marked a significant turning point when the UK and EU introduced a dynamic price cap, while the US steadfastly retained the $60 cap for Russian crude. This divergence has been further supercharged by recent US actions, specifically the issuance of General Licenses 133, 134, and the highly unusual General License U. Moderating the webinar, Jos Standerwick, head of membership at the Baltic Exchange, observed that these moves represent “the first time, I think in probably 30 years, that the US has permitted US persons to engage in Iranian oil transactions”, all in a calculated attempt to stabilise global energy markets amidst the ongoing conflict in the Gulf. New era of general licenses The introduction of these General Licenses marks a departure from traditional sanctioning behaviour. McCleskey explained that General License 133 was an India-specific authorisation focused on Russian oil loaded before March 5, while General License 134 broadened this to allow for the delivery or purchase of Russian oil anywhere, even on previously sanctioned vessels. The messaging from the administration was clear: these were measures to “clear oil that was already on the water and already been sold”, she said. However, it is General License U that has raised the most eyebrows. This license permits Iranian oil loaded on or before March 20 to be sold, delivered, and—most significantly—imported into the US. McCleskey emphasised the rarity of this move, stating: “General License U is a very unusual authorisation, if you follow the history of US Iran sanctions.” However, despite its breadth, the license contains critical gaps, notably failing to authorise transactions with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The inability to pay the IRGC creates a logistical and legal minefield for shipowners transiting the Strait of Hormuz. Standerwick raised the practical concern of the “IRGC transit fee”, questioning if vessels would be unable to pay this under the new license. McCleskey confirmed this interpretation, noting, “It certainly would not be authorised for a US person to pay the IRGC for that sort of… Iranian toll booth.” This creates a situation where companies are forced to “read the tea leaves” of political intent rather than relying on the letter of the law. McCleskey warned that while the current administration may signal a lack of interest in penalising certain activities to keep oil flowing, the legal risks remain long-term. “The OFAC civil enforcement statute of limitations is 10 years,” she cautioned, adding that “a company is left trying to explain the gap between what was stri