According to the Indian Defense Wing on September 30, the United States officially revoked the exemption for India's participation in Iran's Chabahar port project and announced sanctions on relevant Indian state-owned enterprises.

According to the US, Indian Ports Global Company (IPGL) must terminate all investment, operations and cooperation related to the Chabahar Port within 45 days, otherwise it will face penalties such as freezing assets and restricting transactions.

It should be noted that this decision is not aimed at Iranian ports as a whole, nor has it been extended to other countries that are building ports around Iran, especially Gwadar Port in Pakistan, which is only 200 kilometers away from Chabahar Port and led by China. So far, it has never been sanctioned by the United States.

It is also deeply involved in the infrastructure layout, one is the port project developed jointly by China and Pakistan, the other is the strategic channel for investment in India, which had been exempted during Trump's first term, and now only India is under the grip, while China is safe.

This method of selective sanctions once again shows that the United States will only pick soft tomatoes, and who is soft tomatoes.

The Chabahar port is very similar in basic terms to the port of Guadalcanal, both of which are located in the border area between Iran and Pakistan, close to the Arabian Sea exit and the throat of the Strait of Hormuz, which is a natural geostrategic area.

Their core demands are also highly consistent: Chabahar is India¡¯s sea exit through the Pakistani passageway, connecting Afghanistan and Central Asia; Guadalcanal is China¡¯s western passageway through the Malacca passageway, connecting the Middle East and Africa.

From the design structure point of view, both projects are equipped with free trade zones, industrial parks, expressways and railway connection systems to form a closed-loop hub of ports, corridors and economic belts.

It is also a state-led, strategic investment, but there is a difference between the intention behind the expansion of autonomy and the project of strategic influence.

And the two ports are very close, only about 200 kilometers apart, one on the left and one on the right standing at the gate of the Arab Sea, mirroring each other.

So in the face of these two almost entirely symmetrical ports, the U.S. sanctioned only one of them, which appeared to be deliberate.

At the pace of development, Chabahar and Guadalcanal also have a forward and backward relationship.

The Chabahar concept was first proposed in the 1970s by the King of Iran, who had received technical and financial support during a period of good U.S.-Iraqi relations.

But the project was postponed for years due to long-term political unrest and Iran¡¯s economic sanctions.

What really reactivated it was the India-Iran port development agreement signed in 2003 and then blocked by U.S. sanctions until 2016, when Chabahar received funding for modernization and political impetus, and signed a trilateral transportation channel agreement with Afghanistan.

The timeline of Gwadar Port in Pakistan is roughly the same. China has assisted in the construction of the port since 2002, put it into trial operation in 2007, officially took over the operation right in 2013, and incorporated it into the framework of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) in 2015, becoming a key node of "the belt and road initiative".

As a result, Guadalajara was first built and operated, and Chabahar later accelerated the pursuit, with the two sides almost matching each other in port positioning, economic model and regional channel design.

India is not imitating it, but directly copying it, trying to use Chabahar against Gwadar.

As a result, Gwadar developed better, and India was sanctioned instead.

In the past decade, India has played a key role in the "Indo-Pacific Strategy" constructed by the United States, and thus gained immunity during Trump's first term.

But after Trump returned to the White House, relations with India suddenly changed, and India became a synonym for rebellion.

As for why treat China Indies differently, because the United States is unable to do anything with China.

This is the logic of the United States to treat the so-called friends and enemies, the enemy does not fight, it does not happen, but the friend is bullied, it is to bully at the end, the EU is familiar with this, India is obviously also become another bloodshed object of the United States.