Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, designated Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi, also known as Golden Global Bank. The action also covers Istanbul-based Golden Global Varlik Kiralama Anonim Sirketi and Golden Global Portfoy Yonetimi Anonim Sirketi.

Treasury said the designations are part of a wider campaign to restrict financial channels that support Iran’s government and military-linked networks.

Treasury accuses bank of moving Iranian funds

Treasury accused Golden Global Bank of facilitating tens of millions of dollars in transactions for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force.

The department also said the bank provided correspondent banking access to Iranian financial institutions. That access allowed them to move funds through international channels, according to Treasury.

Treasury further alleged that Golden Global Bank helped Iran’s leadership network transfer oil revenue from China to Turkey. The department said the funds could then be converted into cash and gold.

Those allegations form the basis for the U.S. designation of the bank.

Two subsidiaries face the same restrictions

The sanctions also cover two companies controlled by Golden Global Bank.

Treasury identified Golden Global Varlik Kiralama and Golden Global Portfoy Yonetimi as subsidiaries of the sanctioned bank. It designated both companies because of their ownership or control by the parent institution.

The action therefore applies to three entities rather than the bank alone.

U.S. financial restrictions take effect

OFAC rules block property and interests in property belonging to the designated entities when that property is in the United States or under the control of U.S. persons.

U.S. persons generally cannot conduct transactions involving that blocked property unless OFAC authorizes them or another exemption applies.

Foreign financial institutions can also face risks if they knowingly conduct significant transactions involving designated entities.

The restrictions can therefore affect financial institutions outside the United States.

Treasury expands pressure on Iran’s financial networks

The designations form part of Treasury’s Operation Economic Outcast campaign. The department said the campaign targets financial networks, facilitators and channels that Iran uses to evade sanctions and move oil-sale proceeds.

Treasury has warned financial institutions that assist Iran with sanctions evasion or money laundering could lose access to the U.S. financial system.

The Golden Global action extends that pressure to a Turkish financial institution that Treasury says helped Iranian entities use international banking channels.

Oil revenue remains a focus

Treasury’s allegations against Golden Global Bank center in part on Iranian oil revenue.

According to the department, the bank helped move oil proceeds from China to Turkey. The funds could then be converted into cash and gold.

Treasury has targeted financial intermediaries as part of its broader effort to restrict Iran’s ability to move and recover revenue from oil sales.

Designations use executive authority

Treasury said it designated Golden Global Bank under Executive Order 13902.

The order allows the United States to impose sanctions on certain sectors of Iran’s economy, including the financial sector.

Treasury said Golden Global Bank operated in Iran’s financial sector and engaged in significant transactions involving financial-sector goods or services connected with Iran.

The department designated the two subsidiaries separately because Golden Global Bank owns or controls them.

Turkey becomes part of the sanctions action

The designations bring a Turkey-based financial institution into Washington’s broader campaign against Iranian sanctions-evasion networks.

Turkey’s position as a regional financial and commercial center can make its institutions relevant to cross-border transactions involving Iranian entities. In this case, however, Treasury’s action is based specifically on its allegations about Golden Global Bank.

The U.S. government is using its sanctions system to target foreign institutions that it says help Iran access international finance.

Action carries a wider warning

The case also shows how U.S. sanctions can affect financial institutions outside the country directly targeted by the policy.

Treasury says Iran uses intermediary institutions and alternative financial channels to move money between jurisdictions and maintain international transactions.

Washington is seeking to disrupt those channels by increasing the financial risks for institutions that work with Iran’s sanctioned networks.

The immediate restrictions apply to Golden Global Bank and its two subsidiaries. Treasury’s broader warning extends to other institutions that may consider providing similar services to Iranian entities.

Reporting Credit: This report is based on information from the U.S. Department of the Treasury and its Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).

The post U.S. Sanctions Turkish Bank Over Alleged Iran Financial Activity appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The memorandum of understanding signed by President Donald Trump initiates a 60-day negotiating period to reach a final agreement on Iran’s nuclear program. While administration allies emphasized that the deal is not final, provisions involving the lifting of economic sanctions on Iran’s oil exports and the creation of a reported $300 billion reconstruction fund have drawn criticism from within Trump’s own party.

Sen. Roger Wicker, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, warned that the arrangement could weaken longstanding U.S. pressure on Tehran.

“President Trump has pursued peace through strength. I hope the intermediaries working on this deal are not undermining that objective,” Wicker said, also comparing the proposed reconstruction fund to Iran-related provisions under the Obama administration’s 2015 nuclear agreement.

Wicker said the proposed financial framework “would make Iran’s payoff under President Obama’s 2015 deal look like a pittance by comparison,” though the administration has indicated the United States would not directly contribute to the fund.

GOP lawmakers raise concerns over financial terms

As the memorandum was circulated among lawmakers, several Republican senators raised questions about its economic provisions and enforcement mechanisms. Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota said they were seeking clarity on how financial incentives would be structured and how compliance with restrictions on terrorism financing would be enforced.

Rounds said the agreement left unresolved questions about “how this is going to be implemented,” warning that “a lot of money’s going to go to Iran.”

Other Republicans aligned more closely with the administration’s foreign policy approach defended the agreement’s intent, arguing it preserves leverage by conditioning Iran’s future behavior.

Sen. Roger Marshall said in a social media post that key provisions would help ensure Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon, framing the agreement as strengthening regional security.

Louisiana GOP Senate candidate John Fleming suggested the deal’s credibility would depend on enforcement, saying it reflects a “speak-softly-and-carry-a-big-stick” approach that retains the possibility of military action if Iran fails to comply.

Trump defends interim agreement amid criticism

President Trump rejected criticism of the agreement, calling detractors “fools” on his Truth Social platform and dismissing concerns about the reported $300 billion reconstruction fund as “fake news.” He reiterated that no U.S. taxpayer funds would be used.

“All there is for the U.S. is Success, Lower Oil Prices, and Victory,” Trump posted.

The administration maintains that sanctions relief and postwar economic measures are part of a broader strategy to stabilize the region while continuing negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program during the 60-day window.

Conservative allies and media voices warn of risks

Opposition to the agreement also emerged from influential conservative commentators and Trump-aligned media figures, some of whom argued the timing and structure of the deal could undermine U.S. leverage.

Conservative radio host Mark Levin suggested delaying any agreement until after the upcoming midterm elections, arguing that U.S. military readiness and energy policy considerations should take precedence.

Right-wing commentator Laura Loomer questioned the intelligence behind the negotiations, posting on X: “Who is giving the President tainted, pro-Islamic intel?”

Former Vice President Mike Pence also criticized the arrangement, describing it as overly conciliatory toward Tehran and reflecting long-standing distrust of the Iranian government.

Questions persist in Senate over implementation

Despite divisions within the Republican Party, lawmakers across several factions continued to raise concerns about implementation, oversight, and long-term consequences for U.S. foreign policy. The memorandum’s 60-day negotiating window now sets the stage for further congressional scrutiny as details of enforcement and funding mechanisms remain under review.

Tags: Senate Armed Services Committee, Iran Nuclear Program, US Iran Relations, Sanctions Policy, Republican Party, Donald Trump, Foreign Policy Negotiations, Midterm Elections, Oil Markets, National Security

The post Republican Lawmakers Split Over Trump’s Iran War-Ending Agreement as Nuclear Deal Concerns Mount appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.