If you think the timing of this is coincidence then I can't really help that but to me it is quite clear that this is just another salvo in the developing US/China trade war.

Yes they were guilty, no normally that would not result in a sanction of this kind, they'd be fined and life would most likely go on the way it it did before.

The ban is a further punishment for violating a plea deal that was signed 41 days into the Trump administration. That plea deal was signed by John H. Parker, Obama's U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas (before he was replaced by Trump's appointee to that position).

Is it entirely a coincidence? Who knows. The Obama DOJ saw fit to fine ZTE 1.2 billion as part of the plea deal. So the conduct was serious. That makes it hard to argue that the punishment for violating the plea deal is some new thing Trump concocted to fuel a trade war.

That may be true, but a couple of thoughts:

AFAIK: We don't know if they violated the plea deal; there is no due process; we only have the claims of an administration that is widely believed to lie. We can't distinguish a political decision from a legal one. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about the process.)

And it doesn't matter what the facts are, it's perception that counts. The appearance is that the current U.S. administration disregards process, fairness, honesty, and the rule of law; is an unreliable international partner; and particularly targets China. The ZTE penalty will be perceived in that context. Any leader must account for perception, whether they like it or not; I think we can fairly assume that the administration is aware of the essential nature of perception, is aware of the perception of this action, and has chosen it.

>The Obama DOJ saw fit to fine ZTE 1.2 billion as part of the plea deal. So the conduct was serious.

this presupposes that punishments fit crimes for corporations in our country, and that there isn't rampant partiality

See the separate events in the last decade or so with major players getting minuscule punishments: Goldman Sachs et al, BOA, HSBC, Wells Fargo, etc etc

Why would ZTE pay the fine if they are no longer allowed to source parts?

Presumably to retain access to the US market, banking system, and preserve any assets they might have within reach of US law from seizure.

Maybe they'll decide not to pay and withdraw from the US completely, but that would seriously complicate any future re-entry once the current sourcing bans expire.

My guess is that they will switch to Chinese components and basically become a captive hardware manufacturer for the PRC government, which presumably won't let them fail completely even if their handsets are no longer market-competitive.

>The Obama DOJ saw fit to fine ZTE 1.2 billion as part of the plea deal. So the conduct was serious. That makes it hard to argue that the punishment for violating the plea deal is some new thing Trump concocted to fuel a trade war.

extracting a fine from a big foreign corporation is more like a good deal. Limiting the business of your country businesses - hardly so.

If they were a Chinese entity, why would they have to follow US issued sanctions? I assume because they conducted business in USD and/or were paid in USD?

If I'm a European, I'll happily sell stuff to Iran if that means I'll make a profit. US sanctions do not apply to me.

> If they were a Chinese entity, why would they have to follow US issued sanctions?

Because they are a Chinese entity that buys U.S. made components in the U.S., and violated associated controls on the export of those components.

Then you can't use US components in things you send on after saying you wouldn't.

The EU also has significant sanctions in place regarding Iran.