Then the next paragraph: "Sanctions have long been a blunt tool..." Actually that was the third paragraph, but we have to follow the order. Let's re-read the original content:
The article has:
- First paragraph (intro)
- h2: "What the new sanctions cover"
- Then a paragraph: "The expanded sanctions hit three specific areas..." (that's the second paragraph we translated)
- Then another paragraph: "Sanctions have long been a blunt tool..." (third paragraph)
- Then h2: "Iran's promised retaliation"
- Then paragraph: "Iran has said it will respond..."
- Then paragraph: "Retaliation doesn't have to be military..."
- Then h2: "Risks to oil markets and US-China relations"
- Then paragraph: "The sanctions are not happening in a vacuum..."
- Then paragraph: "The China angle is trickier..."
- Then paragraph: "No one in the administration has said..."
So we need to translate all of that.
Let's translate the h2s and paragraphs in order.
We already have the first paragraph translated.
Now h2: "What the new sanctions cover" -> "새 제재의 적용 범위" (or "새 제재가 다루는 분야" but let's use "새 제재의 적용 범위")
Then the paragraph: "The expanded sanctions hit three specific areas..." -> we have that.
Then the paragraph: "Sanctions have long been a blunt tool..." -> we have that.
Now h2: "Iran's promised retaliation" -> "이란의 보복 다짐" or "이란의 보복 위협" but "promised retaliation" means they promised to retaliate. So "이란의 보복 예고" might be good. Let's use "이란의 보복 다짐" but "다짐" is more like a pledge. "보복 예고" is more like a notice. Actually "promised retaliation" means they have promised to retaliate, so "이란의 보복 약속" but that sounds odd. Maybe "이란의 보복 위협" is fine. But the original says "Iran's promised retaliation" so we can say "이란의 보복 다짐" or "이란의 보복 예고". I'll go with "이란의 보복 예고" for naturalness.
Then the paragraph: "Iran has said it will respond. Officials there have not said when or how, but the pattern of past crises suggests the options range from diplomatic moves to direct action. The threat alone is enough to keep markets on edge, especially in the oil sector."
Translation: "이란은 대응하겠다고 밝혔다. 이란 관리들은 언제, 어떻게 대응할지 밝히지 않았지만, 과거 위기의 패턴을 보면 외교적 움직임부터 직접 행동까지 다양한 선택지가 있다. 위협만으로도 특히 석유 부문에서 시장을 긴장시키기에 충분하다."
Next paragraph: "Retaliation doesn't have to be military. It could be a new breach of nuclear commitments, a threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, or a cyber attack. The US will likely be watching for any shift in Iranian behavior in the coming weeks."
Translation: "보복이 군사적일 필요는 없다. 핵 합의의 새로운 위반, 호르무즈 해협 봉쇄 위협, 또는 사이버 공격이 될 수 있다. 미국은 앞으로 몇 주 안에 이란의 행동 변화를 주시할 것이다."
Now h2: "Risks to oil markets and US-China relations" -> "석유 시장과 미·중 관계에 대한 위험" or "석유 시장 및 미·중 관계에 미치는 위험" but we can be concise: "석유 시장과 미·중 관계의 위험" but that might be ambiguous. Let's use "석유 시장과 미·중 관계에 대한 리스크" but "리스크" is a loanword. Better to use "위험" or "위험 요소". I'll use "석유 시장과 미·중 관계의 위험" but that sounds like the risk belongs to them. Actually "Risks to" means risks for those, so "석유 시장과 미·중 관계에 대한 위험" is fine.
Then the paragraph: "The sanctions are not happening in a vacuum. Oil markets are already tight, and any disruption to Iranian supply — either through reduced exports or blocked shipping lanes — could push prices up. Iran sits on some of the world's largest oil reserves, and its exports have already been curtailed by prior sanctions. The new rules could further cut the flow."
Translation: "제재는 진공 상태에서 일어나는 것이 아니다. 석유 시장은 이미 타이트하며, 이란 공급의 차질 — 수출 감소나 해운 항로 차단을 통한 — 은 가격을 끌어올릴 수 있다. 이란은 세계 최대 석유 매장량 중 일부를 보유하고 있으며, 수출은 이미 이전 제재로 축소되었다. 새로운 규칙은 흐름을 더욱 줄일 수 있다."
Next paragraph: "The China angle is trickier. Beijing remains a major buyer of Iranian oil, often through shadow fleets and middlemen. Tighter sanctions on shipping may force Chinese refiners to look
