Case gives clarity on the incorporation of standard terms. Credit: 3D Animation Production Company, Pixabay

Shift in approach brings unpredictability and regulatory gaps

By Carly Fields

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 strictly authorised by a regulator and what the policy posture was" years after the political winds have shifted.

Challenge of operational compliance

For the private sector, the primary challenge is the "short-term" nature of these measures. Standerwick pointed out that the Iranian license essentially allows for a single laden voyage, leaving no "wriggle room" for port delays or mechanical issues. McCleskey agreed, noting that "short general licenses were extremely difficult for the private sector to operationalise" because they do not provide enough time for companies to adjust, document, and relax internal controls safely.

This fluidity has transformed the compliance landscape from a predictable marathon into a series of high-stakes sprints.

In the past, OFAC actions were accompanied by numerous Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) that provided clarity. Today, however, the pace of policy changes means "that’s just not going to happen”, according to McCleskey. The lack of formal guidance forces companies to rely on their internal agility and risk assessment capabilities.

While major owners and insurers have the resources to maintain sophisticated compliance departments, the maritime industry is "deeply fragmented”, she said. Smaller entities, such as bunker providers and ship agents, face significant exposure. McCleskey advised that "risk assessment... doesn't have to be this really long and onerous process”. Instead, smaller firms should focus on the "top three things that are likely to land us in hot water" based on their specific geography and business model.

The goal for any entity, regardless of size, should be to define a clear "chain of command" and an "escalation pathway”. McCleskey likened this to modern cybersecurity protocols, where even the smallest player must have an emergency plan in place. "Better to invest a little bit upfront than have to deal with some catastrophe," she said.

Future of the sanctions tool

The participants also reflected on whether this current volatility is a temporary symptom of geopolitical tumult or a permanent structural change. McCleskey was unequivocal: "The genie is certainly out of the bottle." Within the US government, sanctions have become a "reflex" for the policy-making establishment, often serving as a "pressure release valve" to avoid physical conflict, she said.

Furthermore, the global landscape is shifting as other nations observe the power of the US dollar and look to develop their own financial leverage.

This suggests that the shipping industry will remain a primary conduit for foreign policy projection for the foreseeable future.

Despite the frustrations of a "top-down" administration that leaves little room for industry input, McCleskey urged the shipping sector to maintain its "proactive and honest engagement" with regulators. She noted that the industry's past efforts have actually paid off, leading to a much better understanding of maritime logistics within the Treasury Department. "I think that shipping is actually a fairly well-understood industry at Treasury now, in a way that it wasn't," she said, noting that even the most unusual new licenses now contain paragraphs that specifically address the nuances of the "shipping value chain”.