China, one of Iran’s largest oil buyers, relies heavily on discounted Iranian crude, much of it processed by smaller independent “teapot” refineries concentrated in eastern provinces such as Shandong.

The Chinese commerce ministry said U.S. sanctions targeting the firms, announced separately since last year, “shall not be recognized, implemented, or complied with,” describing the restrictions as unilateral measures lacking legal legitimacy.

The ministry said the sanctions “improperly prohibit or restrict Chinese enterprises from conducting normal economic, trade and related activities with third countries” and argued they violated international law and the basic norms governing international relations.“The Chinese government has consistently opposed unilateral sanctions lacking U.N. authorization and a basis in international law,” the ministry said in a statement.

The injunction applies to three companies based in Shandong province Shandong Jincheng Petrochemical Group, Shandong Shouguang Luqing Petrochemical and Shandong Shengxing Chemical along with Hengli Petrochemical (Dalian) Refinery and Hebei Xinhai Chemical Group.

Washington has intensified efforts to curb Iran’s oil revenues, which it says help finance Tehran’s regional activities and strategic programs, by expanding sanctions on Chinese refiners and shipping entities involved in the trade.

On Friday, the United States imposed sanctions on another Chinese company, Qingdao Haiye Oil Terminal Co. Ltd., alleging it had imported “tens of millions of barrels” of Iranian crude worth billions of dollars for Tehran.That company was not included in Beijing’s latest formal injunction.

The dispute comes as U.S.-Iran tensions remain high following the conflict triggered by U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran in late February, with diplomatic efforts failing so far to produce a lasting resolution.Energy flows through the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz remain under close international scrutiny as sanctions pressure and military tensions continue to shape global oil markets.

The sanctions dispute also adds another layer of complexity ahead of U.S. President Donald Trump’s expected visit to China later this month, where talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping are likely to include trade disputes, regional security and Iran-related tensions.

The Pentagon had announced on Friday that about 5,000 troops would be withdrawn from Germany over the next six to 12 months, but Trump said the reduction would go significantly beyond that figure.“We’re going to cut way down, and we’re cutting a lot further than 5,000,” Trump told reporters in Florida, offering no detailed explanation for the expanded drawdown.

The move escalates tensions with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and comes amid broader disputes between Washington and European allies over defense spending, the war in Iran and trans-Atlantic trade.Germany currently hosts around 36,000 U.S. service members, including major strategic facilities such as Ramstein Air Base, the headquarters of U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command, and the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, a major military hospital serving overseas operations.

A withdrawal of 5,000 troops would represent roughly one-seventh of the U.S. military presence in Germany, though the Pentagon has not clarified which units or operations would be affected by the larger reduction Trump indicated.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said earlier on Saturday that the initial drawdown was expected and reflected a broader reality that Europe must take greater responsibility for its own security.“The presence of American soldiers in Europe, and especially in Germany, is in our interest and in the interest of the U.S.,” Pistorius told German news agency dpa.

“We Europeans must take on more responsibility for our security,” he added, pointing to Germany’s increased defense spending, faster procurement and military modernization efforts.NATO also responded cautiously, with spokesperson Allison Hart saying the alliance was working with Washington to understand the details of the force posture changes.

“This adjustment underscores the need for Europe to continue to invest more in defense and take on a greater share of the responsibility for our shared security,” she said in a post on X, while noting progress toward the alliance’s defense spending target of 5% of GDP among member states.

The troop reduction has faced immediate resistance in Washington from both Democrats and senior Republicans, who warned that it could weaken deterrence against Russia as Moscow’s war in Ukraine enters its fifth year.

Republican lawmakers Senator Roger Wicker and Representative Mike Rogers, who chair the Senate and House armed services committees, said they were “very concerned” the decision would risk “undermining deterrence and sending the wrong signal to Vladimir Putin.”They also said the Pentagon had canceled the planned deployment of the Army’s Long-Range Fires Battalion, a move they argued would further weaken NATO’s eastern posture.

Trump’s renewed push to scale back troop deployments follows longstanding criticism of European allies for relying too heavily on U.S. defense guarantees while underinvesting in their own militaries.His frustration has deepened over Europe’s reluctance to fully support Washington’s military campaign with Israel against Iran, as well as over trade disputes with the European Union.

Trump recently accused the EU of failing to comply with a trade agreement and said he would raise tariffs next week on European-made cars and trucks to 25%, a step likely to hit Germany’s export-driven auto sector particularly hard.

Merz last week criticized U.S. strategy toward Iran, saying Washington was being “humiliated” by Iranian leadership and lacked a coherent approach.Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said the troop withdrawal followed “a thorough review” of U.S. force posture in Europe and reflected operational needs and current conditions on the ground.

A U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said military branches had no prior notice of the decision and learned of the reduction in real time, underscoring internal concerns over the abruptness of the move.

Germany remains central to U.S. military operations in Europe, with permanent Army and Air Force deployments, logistical hubs and strategic nuclear assets, making any significant troop reduction symbolically and operationally sensitive for NATO.

Rodríguez announced the changes in a social media post, describing the appointments as a “renewed Military High Command,” a day after dismissing the long-serving defense minister and installing a former intelligence chief in his place.

The move marks one of the most significant restructurings of Venezuela’s armed forces since the leadership transition.The reshuffle follows the removal of the defense minister, a close ally of Maduro who had remained a key figure within the military establishment.

His replacement, a former intelligence official, is part of Rodríguez’s broader effort to consolidate control over the security apparatus.

Analysts say the changes reflect an attempt to rebuild authority within the armed forces after criticism of the previous command structure, particularly following the U.S. operation that led to Maduro’s capture in January.

Financial TimesThe military, which has pledged loyalty to Rodríguez, remains a central pillar of governance in Venezuela, overseeing sectors including oil, mining, food distribution and key administrative functions.

Rodríguez, who previously served as vice president under Maduro, is navigating competing pressures from Washington and domestic political factions. The United States has exerted influence over policy direction, including economic reforms and access to Venezuela’s natural resources.

She has introduced an amnesty law to release political prisoners and moved to reform oil and mining regulations in line with U.S. expectations, while also managing a fragile domestic environment marked by economic hardship and shortages of basic goods.

U.S. President Donald Trump has said Washington is closely involved in Venezuela’s transition, while allowing Rodríguez to remain in power conditional on cooperation with U.S. objectives.

Rodríguez faces the challenge of maintaining support among Venezuelans loyal to Maduro while advancing reforms under international scrutiny. Maduro, detained following the U.S. operation, has been taken to New York to face drug trafficking charges.

The military’s expanded role in economic and administrative sectors has drawn criticism over alleged corruption and abuses, complicating efforts to stabilize the country as it navigates a period of political transition.

The latest restructuring underscores the importance of military alignment in Venezuela’s evolving power dynamics, as Rodríguez seeks to secure her position amid ongoing geopolitical pressure and internal uncertainty.

The controversy followed a series of events during and after a tournament in Australia, where seven members of the squad initially accepted asylum offers, but five later reversed their decisions and rejoined the team, leaving two players remaining in Australia.

Refugee advocates said the outcome raised concerns about whether the players had been given adequate time and independent legal advice before making decisions. Graham Thom described the result as “far from ideal,” expressing concern both for the two players who stayed and those who returned.

The episode drew scrutiny after Australia’s Immigration Minister Tony Burke publicly released images of five women who had accepted humanitarian visas, a move that critics said may have exposed them to additional pressure.

Analysts noted that Australia has traditionally handled asylum cases discreetly, partly to reduce risks for applicants and their families. Critics argued that the high-profile approach in this case may have complicated the situation.

The situation escalated after Donald Trump publicly called for the players to be granted asylum and raised the issue with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. The involvement of political leaders, analysts said, contributed to turning the case into a broader geopolitical dispute.

Shahram Akbarzadeh said the players’ initial actions, including declining to sing the national anthem at a match, became politicized and amplified beyond their original context.

“It quickly turned into a political dispute and political theater,” he said, adding that multiple actors sought to use the situation to advance competing narratives.

Iranian officials rejected claims that the players were pressured to return. Foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said those who reversed their asylum decisions had been “coerced” into applying and denied that Tehran influenced their return.

Australian officials denied exerting pressure on the players, with Assistant Immigration Minister Matt Thistlethwaite describing the situation as “very complex” and emphasizing that the decisions were personal.

Some former athletes and advocates expressed concern that external pressure may have affected the players’ choices. Shiva Amini said she feared potential repercussions for those who returned, citing risks to family members, although she declined to provide details.

The majority of the team regrouped and traveled through Kuala Lumpur and Oman before returning to Iran via Turkiye, where state media reported they were welcomed upon arrival. Midfielder Fatemeh Shaban said the players were “happy to be in Iran,” describing it as their homeland.The reasons behind the decision by five players to abandon their asylum bids have not been publicly disclosed.

The episode has prompted wider debate over how asylum claims intersect with diplomacy, media exposure and the welfare of individuals involved in politically sensitive cases.