March 21, 2025
Shivan Mahendrarajah
As Trump eyes war with Iran to bolster his legacy and appease his pro-Israel backers, Tehran’s likely retaliation could crash global markets, spike oil prices, and bring economic pain directly to the American public – turning support for apocalyptic politics into a crisis at the checkout line.
Shivan Mahendrarajah
As Trump eyes war with Iran to bolster his legacy and appease his pro-Israel backers, Tehran’s likely retaliation could crash global markets, spike oil prices, and bring economic pain directly to the American public – turning support for apocalyptic politics into a crisis at the checkout line.
The “winds of war” are blowing toward Iran. This is the war for which Israeli donors Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, along with pro-Israel organizations such as AIPAC and the ADL, paid US President Donald Trump hundreds of millions of dollars over two election cycles.
But it’s not only the Israeli lobby banging the war drums; American Evangelicals – especially groups like “Christians United for Israel” – also support war, believing it will “save Israel” from the “Iranian menace.” Evangelical membership in the 119th Congress (2025–27) is high. War with Iran is not (yet) popular in the US, but – just as with Iraq – consent will be manufactured by Washington elites and the media.
Trump’s outreach to Russian President Vladimir Putin to resolve the Ukraine war partly aims to shift the Pentagon’s attention back to West Asia. He assumes that an early 2025 war with Iran will “save Israel” and secure his legacy, letting him focus on “America First” for the rest of his term.
But war with Iran could also backfire disastrously, sink his presidency, and derail the ambitions of 2028 Republican hopefuls like Marco Rubio and J.D. Vance. For starters, should the military campaign encounter any unforeseen backlash – which is highly likely, and the reason the Pentagon has assiduously avoided direct confrontation with Iran – the Democratic Party could retake both chambers of Congress after a US stock market crash and recession triggered by the war.
Iran’s military responses
Iranian leaders have vowed “devastating” retaliation for any attack on their soil. This would likely involve missile strikes against Israeli and US military targets – and possibly infrastructure and economic targets within the occupation state. If Israel uses tactical nuclear weapons against Iran’s nuclear facilities, Tehran will escalate further.
Whether or not nukes are used, war would shock the global economy, send oil prices soaring, and halt maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. The greatest impact will fall on countries most dependent on West Asian oil.
The US economy may be less affected in the short term. Its stock markets, already down 10 percent since Trump’s return to the White House, would decline further – but Trump is gambling that households will not feel the pain. But if the Islamic Republic launches economic warfare that “brings the war home,” political dynamics will change.
Economic warfare
Most Americans are detached from the notion and consequences of war because, since the Civil War, US wars have been fought far from its borders. Even during the World Wars, though American families faced personal loss, the nation did not endure widespread suffering – unlike Britain, which imposed food rationing from 1939 to 1954.
The “Global War on Terror” impacted some communities, but not the country. US troops often joked in Iraq: “We’re at war; America’s at the mall.” Americans kept spending and enjoying life, while Iraqis and US occupation soldiers endured the brutal costs.
Iranian leadership understands this disconnect. The US stock market is a tempting target. In 1929, at the start of the Great Depression, just 2.5 percent of Americans owned stock. Today, about 61 percent of US adults – roughly 160 million people – own shares through private accounts, pension schemes, or retirement plans.
Factoring in children in such households, roughly 200 million Americans are exposed to market fluctuations. Trillions more dollars are invested by corporations, universities, and foreign institutions. The exposure is deep.
The US economy is fragile. Mark Zandi, Moody’s chief economist, warned that the risk of recession is “uncomfortably high and rising.” On 19 March, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell kept interest rates steady, citing slowing consumer spending and growing uncertainty. Trump, fearing economic fallout, raged on Truth Social over the Fed’s refusal to cut rates. He announced retaliatory tariffs set to take effect on 2 April.
Household debt is rising – $18.04 trillion as of Q4 2024 – with increasing defaults on auto loans and credit cards. Americans, like the federal government, spend on credit. Investors borrow against their portfolios with margin loans. If stock values fall, forced selloffs to cover debts could intensify market collapse. “Margin calls” – demands for loan repayments – played a greater role in the ensuing economic turmoil than the 13 percent market drop on 28 October 1929.
The US economy is already strained, and consumers are over-leveraged. A large external shock could push it into a deep recession. Stock markets would plunge, wiping out pension savings and private wealth.
How far markets fall would depend on the force of Iran’s blow. The current 10 percent drop has already hurt. A deeper decline – say, 25 to 50 percent – would cripple the economy, spark layoffs and bankruptcies, and tighten credit. That would suppress consumer spending and crash the housing market, as in 2008.
Tehran’s targets
As Iranian leaders have often repeated, “If Iran cannot sell oil, no one will.” If US or Israeli forces strike Iranian tankers or infrastructure, Tehran is likely to target US economic interests and the oil sectors of any Persian Gulf Arab state that supports the attacks by allowing fighter jets, drones, or missiles to launch from their territories.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) may choose to strike Bahrain, which is an obvious military target since it hosts the US Naval Forces Central Command. In addition to military sites, Iran could target the Bahrain Petroleum Company’s refinery, which processes 270,000 barrels per day, along with its marine terminal and oil storage facilities.
The oil farm holds 14 million barrels – ample fuel for a dramatic strike. Iran could also destroy the King Fahd Causeway connecting Bahrain to Saudi Arabia to prevent Riyadh from sending ground troops to suppress unrest among Bahrain’s majority Shia population, as it did during the 2011 uprising.
In Iraq, too, US military bases will almost certainly come under fire. Beyond that, Iran-aligned factions within the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) may attempt to capture the 2,500 US troops still stationed there – not to kill them, but to take them as hostages.
Living captives would be far more valuable, creating a nightmare scenario for Trump and serving as a sharp reminder to Americans – who often forget the wars they once supported – that US troops remain in Iraq more than two decades after the 2003 invasion. These POWs would likely be scattered across the country, making coordinated rescue missions difficult and turning them into bargaining chips in any future negotiations.
Jordan, having allowed Israeli overflights last year in October during Iran’s retaliatory strikes and before that in April, is likely to do so again and could face significant retaliation. In addition to the Zarqa oil refinery, Iranian forces might strike political, military, and intelligence targets. Such attacks would certainly provoke unrest among Jordan’s population, the majority of whom are of Palestinian descent and already harbor grievances against their leadership for its collusion with Tel Aviv.
The UAE, if complicit in the attacks, could face military strikes on its energy infrastructure and power plants, as it experienced during its war with Yemen. The Emirates is particularly vulnerable due to its demographic makeup – about 88 percent of its population consists of foreign workers. If those workers flee following targeted attacks, the country’s economy would be brought to its knees.
Qatar and Oman are likely to be treated differently. Muscat, with its long-standing neutral foreign policy in the region, has maintained warm relations with Iran, and will not likely participate in a US military aggression. Doha also enjoys relatively good relations with Tehran, though it hosts the US Central Command's (CENTCOM) Al-Udeid Air Base and worked to thwart Iranian interests in Syria. Iran might strike CENTCOM's headquarters in West Asia, but is unlikely to target other Qatari assets.
Saudi Arabia presents a more complex scenario. Although both Russia and China have encouraged reconciliation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the kingdom may not remain on the sidelines. If it does participate in hostilities, it would become a high-priority target.
Even if Riyadh stays neutral, Iran might still strike its East–West oil pipeline, which terminates at the port of Yanbu. That pipeline – built in 1982 to bypass the Persian Gulf – delivers over three million barrels per day to Europe.
Yanbu’s port, refinery, and export terminals, some of which are operated in partnership with western firms, would be natural targets. A simultaneous closure of the Strait of Hormuz and disruption of Red Sea traffic would block the export of roughly five million barrels per day. While former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter predicted oil prices could surge to $120 per barrel, Iran might be capable of pushing them as high as $200.
China, when retaliating against Trump’s tariffs, acted strategically. It imports just 7 percent of its pork from the US, but most pork producers are in Republican “red states.” Targeting that sector hurt Trump’s base directly.
While spiking oil prices and global economic turmoil would harm Iran’s allies and the Global South, Iran’s adversaries in the US, UK, Israel, and EU stand to lose the most. If Iran wages a smart economic war, even Evangelicals may start caring more about their grocery bills than hastening the reconstruction of the “Third Temple” and other end-times prophecies.
But it’s not only the Israeli lobby banging the war drums; American Evangelicals – especially groups like “Christians United for Israel” – also support war, believing it will “save Israel” from the “Iranian menace.” Evangelical membership in the 119th Congress (2025–27) is high. War with Iran is not (yet) popular in the US, but – just as with Iraq – consent will be manufactured by Washington elites and the media.
Trump’s outreach to Russian President Vladimir Putin to resolve the Ukraine war partly aims to shift the Pentagon’s attention back to West Asia. He assumes that an early 2025 war with Iran will “save Israel” and secure his legacy, letting him focus on “America First” for the rest of his term.
But war with Iran could also backfire disastrously, sink his presidency, and derail the ambitions of 2028 Republican hopefuls like Marco Rubio and J.D. Vance. For starters, should the military campaign encounter any unforeseen backlash – which is highly likely, and the reason the Pentagon has assiduously avoided direct confrontation with Iran – the Democratic Party could retake both chambers of Congress after a US stock market crash and recession triggered by the war.
Iran’s military responses
Iranian leaders have vowed “devastating” retaliation for any attack on their soil. This would likely involve missile strikes against Israeli and US military targets – and possibly infrastructure and economic targets within the occupation state. If Israel uses tactical nuclear weapons against Iran’s nuclear facilities, Tehran will escalate further.
Whether or not nukes are used, war would shock the global economy, send oil prices soaring, and halt maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. The greatest impact will fall on countries most dependent on West Asian oil.
The US economy may be less affected in the short term. Its stock markets, already down 10 percent since Trump’s return to the White House, would decline further – but Trump is gambling that households will not feel the pain. But if the Islamic Republic launches economic warfare that “brings the war home,” political dynamics will change.
Economic warfare
Most Americans are detached from the notion and consequences of war because, since the Civil War, US wars have been fought far from its borders. Even during the World Wars, though American families faced personal loss, the nation did not endure widespread suffering – unlike Britain, which imposed food rationing from 1939 to 1954.
The “Global War on Terror” impacted some communities, but not the country. US troops often joked in Iraq: “We’re at war; America’s at the mall.” Americans kept spending and enjoying life, while Iraqis and US occupation soldiers endured the brutal costs.
Iranian leadership understands this disconnect. The US stock market is a tempting target. In 1929, at the start of the Great Depression, just 2.5 percent of Americans owned stock. Today, about 61 percent of US adults – roughly 160 million people – own shares through private accounts, pension schemes, or retirement plans.
Factoring in children in such households, roughly 200 million Americans are exposed to market fluctuations. Trillions more dollars are invested by corporations, universities, and foreign institutions. The exposure is deep.
The US economy is fragile. Mark Zandi, Moody’s chief economist, warned that the risk of recession is “uncomfortably high and rising.” On 19 March, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell kept interest rates steady, citing slowing consumer spending and growing uncertainty. Trump, fearing economic fallout, raged on Truth Social over the Fed’s refusal to cut rates. He announced retaliatory tariffs set to take effect on 2 April.
Household debt is rising – $18.04 trillion as of Q4 2024 – with increasing defaults on auto loans and credit cards. Americans, like the federal government, spend on credit. Investors borrow against their portfolios with margin loans. If stock values fall, forced selloffs to cover debts could intensify market collapse. “Margin calls” – demands for loan repayments – played a greater role in the ensuing economic turmoil than the 13 percent market drop on 28 October 1929.
The US economy is already strained, and consumers are over-leveraged. A large external shock could push it into a deep recession. Stock markets would plunge, wiping out pension savings and private wealth.
How far markets fall would depend on the force of Iran’s blow. The current 10 percent drop has already hurt. A deeper decline – say, 25 to 50 percent – would cripple the economy, spark layoffs and bankruptcies, and tighten credit. That would suppress consumer spending and crash the housing market, as in 2008.
Tehran’s targets
As Iranian leaders have often repeated, “If Iran cannot sell oil, no one will.” If US or Israeli forces strike Iranian tankers or infrastructure, Tehran is likely to target US economic interests and the oil sectors of any Persian Gulf Arab state that supports the attacks by allowing fighter jets, drones, or missiles to launch from their territories.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) may choose to strike Bahrain, which is an obvious military target since it hosts the US Naval Forces Central Command. In addition to military sites, Iran could target the Bahrain Petroleum Company’s refinery, which processes 270,000 barrels per day, along with its marine terminal and oil storage facilities.
The oil farm holds 14 million barrels – ample fuel for a dramatic strike. Iran could also destroy the King Fahd Causeway connecting Bahrain to Saudi Arabia to prevent Riyadh from sending ground troops to suppress unrest among Bahrain’s majority Shia population, as it did during the 2011 uprising.
In Iraq, too, US military bases will almost certainly come under fire. Beyond that, Iran-aligned factions within the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) may attempt to capture the 2,500 US troops still stationed there – not to kill them, but to take them as hostages.
Living captives would be far more valuable, creating a nightmare scenario for Trump and serving as a sharp reminder to Americans – who often forget the wars they once supported – that US troops remain in Iraq more than two decades after the 2003 invasion. These POWs would likely be scattered across the country, making coordinated rescue missions difficult and turning them into bargaining chips in any future negotiations.
Jordan, having allowed Israeli overflights last year in October during Iran’s retaliatory strikes and before that in April, is likely to do so again and could face significant retaliation. In addition to the Zarqa oil refinery, Iranian forces might strike political, military, and intelligence targets. Such attacks would certainly provoke unrest among Jordan’s population, the majority of whom are of Palestinian descent and already harbor grievances against their leadership for its collusion with Tel Aviv.
The UAE, if complicit in the attacks, could face military strikes on its energy infrastructure and power plants, as it experienced during its war with Yemen. The Emirates is particularly vulnerable due to its demographic makeup – about 88 percent of its population consists of foreign workers. If those workers flee following targeted attacks, the country’s economy would be brought to its knees.
Qatar and Oman are likely to be treated differently. Muscat, with its long-standing neutral foreign policy in the region, has maintained warm relations with Iran, and will not likely participate in a US military aggression. Doha also enjoys relatively good relations with Tehran, though it hosts the US Central Command's (CENTCOM) Al-Udeid Air Base and worked to thwart Iranian interests in Syria. Iran might strike CENTCOM's headquarters in West Asia, but is unlikely to target other Qatari assets.
Saudi Arabia presents a more complex scenario. Although both Russia and China have encouraged reconciliation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the kingdom may not remain on the sidelines. If it does participate in hostilities, it would become a high-priority target.
Even if Riyadh stays neutral, Iran might still strike its East–West oil pipeline, which terminates at the port of Yanbu. That pipeline – built in 1982 to bypass the Persian Gulf – delivers over three million barrels per day to Europe.
Yanbu’s port, refinery, and export terminals, some of which are operated in partnership with western firms, would be natural targets. A simultaneous closure of the Strait of Hormuz and disruption of Red Sea traffic would block the export of roughly five million barrels per day. While former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter predicted oil prices could surge to $120 per barrel, Iran might be capable of pushing them as high as $200.
China, when retaliating against Trump’s tariffs, acted strategically. It imports just 7 percent of its pork from the US, but most pork producers are in Republican “red states.” Targeting that sector hurt Trump’s base directly.
While spiking oil prices and global economic turmoil would harm Iran’s allies and the Global South, Iran’s adversaries in the US, UK, Israel, and EU stand to lose the most. If Iran wages a smart economic war, even Evangelicals may start caring more about their grocery bills than hastening the reconstruction of the “Third Temple” and other end-times prophecies.
Meeting comes as the US has taken an increasingly hawkish position on Iran despite offers to begin talks
The US and Israel are set to convene a strategic meeting on Iran's nuclear programme as the administration of President Donald Trump ramps up its maximum pressure campaign on Tehran.
The Trump administration is trying to reduce the flow of Iranian oil to China.
The world’s second-largest economy is by far Iran’s biggest customer for crude. On Thursday, the US slapped sanctions on a refinery in east China's Shandong Province and vessels that supplied oil to Chinese plants linked to the Houthis in Yemen.
The Trump administration is targeting so-called “Teapot refineries,” or small, privately owned operations in China that process Iranian crude.
"These sanctions are being imposed pursuant to President Trump's maximum pressure campaign to drive Iran's oil exports, including to China, to zero," State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said in a statement.
"China is by far the largest importer of Iranian oil," she said, adding that Tehran used these oil revenues to "finance attacks" against US allies and to support “terrorism”.
Thursday marked the fourth round of sanctions that Trump has imposed on China.
Reuters reported in January that China’s state-owned Shandong Port Group decided to start blocking tankers under US sanctions. That was a blow to Iran, whose ageing shadow fleet ships most of its oil to China.
Trump's two-month deadline for a deal
The sanctions campaign comes as Axios reports that Israel and the US are preparing to meet to discuss Iran’s nuclear programme.
Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu have already met at the White House and discussed Iran. This specific working group was established in 2009 during the Obama administration.
Ties between the Obama administration and Netanyahu’s government were plagued by tensions over the 2015 nuclear deal, which culminated in Netanyahu delivering an address to Congress in which he trashed Obama’s diplomacy with Iran.
Trump poses a different dilemma for Netanyahu, who is adamantly opposed to a nuclear deal.
Trump walked back the pressure he imposed on Netanyahu in January to reach a ceasefire in Gaza. He has approved expedited arms sales to Israel, including 2,000-pound bombs held up by the Biden administration. He has also thrown US support behind Israel’s decision to restart attacking the Gaza Strip.
On Iran, Trump is positioning himself as hardline.
Besides the sanctions, earlier this month, Israel and the US conducted a joint air force drill in the Eastern Mediterranean that included long-range bombers. The drill was widely seen as a message to Iran about the US preparing for a potential strike on Tehran’s nuclear facilities, analysts say.
At the same time, Trump has said he wants a nuclear deal. In March, he revealed he sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, asking for talks.
“There are two ways Iran can be handled: militarily, or you make a deal,” Trump said. “I would prefer to make a deal because I’m not looking to hurt Iran. They’re great people.”
Axios reported on Friday that Trump's letter set a "two-month deadline for reaching a new nuclear deal”.
Iran hawks versus isolationists
Khamenei, speaking on Friday at his live annual televised speech marking Nowruz, the Persian New Year, said that US threats against his country "will get them nowhere”.
On Thursday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the letter was "more of a threat" but also said it appeared to offer opportunities.
Araghchi added that Tehran is weighing its response, which will be issued in the coming days.
So far, Trump’s diplomacy has given Iran little confidence in the merits of starting talks.
The White House infuriated Israel and the Washington establishment by initiating direct talks with Hamas, but after blowback, the Trump administration pivoted fast, backing Israel’s attack on Gaza. Trump pulled the nomination for his envoy who met with Hamas, with Trump’s approval.
Even in Ukraine, where Trump has positioned himself as a “peacemaker”, he has been unable to reach a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia despite Kyiv agreeing to a truce.
Next week’s meeting between the US and Israel in Washington will include Netanyahu’s top advisors, Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer and national security adviser Tzachi Hanegbi.
Dermer is ultra-hardline on Iran and, at one point, was banned from the White House by the Obama administration, a former US official told MEE.
Trump's national security adviser, Mike Waltz, will attend on the US side, along with officials from the State Department, Pentagon, and US intelligence community.
The US and Israel are set to convene a strategic meeting on Iran's nuclear programme as the administration of President Donald Trump ramps up its maximum pressure campaign on Tehran.
The Trump administration is trying to reduce the flow of Iranian oil to China.
The world’s second-largest economy is by far Iran’s biggest customer for crude. On Thursday, the US slapped sanctions on a refinery in east China's Shandong Province and vessels that supplied oil to Chinese plants linked to the Houthis in Yemen.
The Trump administration is targeting so-called “Teapot refineries,” or small, privately owned operations in China that process Iranian crude.
"These sanctions are being imposed pursuant to President Trump's maximum pressure campaign to drive Iran's oil exports, including to China, to zero," State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said in a statement.
"China is by far the largest importer of Iranian oil," she said, adding that Tehran used these oil revenues to "finance attacks" against US allies and to support “terrorism”.
Thursday marked the fourth round of sanctions that Trump has imposed on China.
Reuters reported in January that China’s state-owned Shandong Port Group decided to start blocking tankers under US sanctions. That was a blow to Iran, whose ageing shadow fleet ships most of its oil to China.
Trump's two-month deadline for a deal
The sanctions campaign comes as Axios reports that Israel and the US are preparing to meet to discuss Iran’s nuclear programme.
Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu have already met at the White House and discussed Iran. This specific working group was established in 2009 during the Obama administration.
Ties between the Obama administration and Netanyahu’s government were plagued by tensions over the 2015 nuclear deal, which culminated in Netanyahu delivering an address to Congress in which he trashed Obama’s diplomacy with Iran.
Trump poses a different dilemma for Netanyahu, who is adamantly opposed to a nuclear deal.
Trump walked back the pressure he imposed on Netanyahu in January to reach a ceasefire in Gaza. He has approved expedited arms sales to Israel, including 2,000-pound bombs held up by the Biden administration. He has also thrown US support behind Israel’s decision to restart attacking the Gaza Strip.
On Iran, Trump is positioning himself as hardline.
Besides the sanctions, earlier this month, Israel and the US conducted a joint air force drill in the Eastern Mediterranean that included long-range bombers. The drill was widely seen as a message to Iran about the US preparing for a potential strike on Tehran’s nuclear facilities, analysts say.
At the same time, Trump has said he wants a nuclear deal. In March, he revealed he sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, asking for talks.
“There are two ways Iran can be handled: militarily, or you make a deal,” Trump said. “I would prefer to make a deal because I’m not looking to hurt Iran. They’re great people.”
Axios reported on Friday that Trump's letter set a "two-month deadline for reaching a new nuclear deal”.
Iran hawks versus isolationists
Khamenei, speaking on Friday at his live annual televised speech marking Nowruz, the Persian New Year, said that US threats against his country "will get them nowhere”.
On Thursday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the letter was "more of a threat" but also said it appeared to offer opportunities.
Araghchi added that Tehran is weighing its response, which will be issued in the coming days.
So far, Trump’s diplomacy has given Iran little confidence in the merits of starting talks.
The White House infuriated Israel and the Washington establishment by initiating direct talks with Hamas, but after blowback, the Trump administration pivoted fast, backing Israel’s attack on Gaza. Trump pulled the nomination for his envoy who met with Hamas, with Trump’s approval.
Even in Ukraine, where Trump has positioned himself as a “peacemaker”, he has been unable to reach a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia despite Kyiv agreeing to a truce.
Next week’s meeting between the US and Israel in Washington will include Netanyahu’s top advisors, Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer and national security adviser Tzachi Hanegbi.
Dermer is ultra-hardline on Iran and, at one point, was banned from the White House by the Obama administration, a former US official told MEE.
Trump's national security adviser, Mike Waltz, will attend on the US side, along with officials from the State Department, Pentagon, and US intelligence community.
US President Donald Trump has recently threatened that Iran risks an attack on its nuclear program if it does not negotiate with Washington
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei warned the US on 21 March that it will receive “a severe slap” if it carries out any attack against the Islamic Republic.
“The Americans should know that they will receive a severe slap in the face if they commit any evil act against the Iranian people,” the Supreme Leader said.
“In confronting Iran, you can never reach a conclusion through threats. You and others must know that you will receive a severe and crushing blow if you commit any foolish act against the Iranian people,” he added.
He went on to say that “the enemies are waging psychological warfare … but to no avail.”
“The Yemeni people have their own motivations, and the resistance groups in the region also have their own goals. Iran does not need proxies,” Khamenei asserted, responding to recent US threats to Iran about its ties to the Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF) and Ansarallah resistance movement.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said one day earlier that Tehran will respond to a recent letter sent by US President Donald Trump within the coming days, and that the response will consider all aspects of the letter, including its “threats or opportunities.”
He also reiterated that Iran will not negotiate with the US on the nuclear issue under the current circumstances.
“Our policy is based on safeguarding our national interests, and the policy of maximum pressure is not new to us,” he stated.
Trump said in early March that he sent a letter to Iranian leadership threatening them to negotiate or risk an attack on their nuclear program. “I've written them a letter, saying I hope you're going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily, it's going to be a terrible thing for them. There are two ways in which Iran can be handled – militarily, or you make a deal,” the president said on 7 March.
Tehran has repeatedly blasted Washington for urging nuclear negotiations and, at the same time, resuming a full-fledged economic war against the country as part of Trump’s sanctions policy.
Several officials, including Iran’s president, have repeatedly vowed not to negotiate under sanctions and threats.
Tehran insists that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful, in line with a religious fatwa against weapons of mass destruction, as well as the fact that it is a signatory in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Yet it faces constant threats of attack from Israel. Reports from last month cited US intelligence estimates as saying that Israel is strongly considering strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, which could potentially come this year.
“I warn all enemies that any threat being carried out (against Iran) will draw a tough, decisive, and devastating reaction,” the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Major General Hossein Salami, vowed on 16 March.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei warned the US on 21 March that it will receive “a severe slap” if it carries out any attack against the Islamic Republic.
“The Americans should know that they will receive a severe slap in the face if they commit any evil act against the Iranian people,” the Supreme Leader said.
“In confronting Iran, you can never reach a conclusion through threats. You and others must know that you will receive a severe and crushing blow if you commit any foolish act against the Iranian people,” he added.
He went on to say that “the enemies are waging psychological warfare … but to no avail.”
“The Yemeni people have their own motivations, and the resistance groups in the region also have their own goals. Iran does not need proxies,” Khamenei asserted, responding to recent US threats to Iran about its ties to the Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF) and Ansarallah resistance movement.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said one day earlier that Tehran will respond to a recent letter sent by US President Donald Trump within the coming days, and that the response will consider all aspects of the letter, including its “threats or opportunities.”
He also reiterated that Iran will not negotiate with the US on the nuclear issue under the current circumstances.
“Our policy is based on safeguarding our national interests, and the policy of maximum pressure is not new to us,” he stated.
Trump said in early March that he sent a letter to Iranian leadership threatening them to negotiate or risk an attack on their nuclear program. “I've written them a letter, saying I hope you're going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily, it's going to be a terrible thing for them. There are two ways in which Iran can be handled – militarily, or you make a deal,” the president said on 7 March.
Tehran has repeatedly blasted Washington for urging nuclear negotiations and, at the same time, resuming a full-fledged economic war against the country as part of Trump’s sanctions policy.
Several officials, including Iran’s president, have repeatedly vowed not to negotiate under sanctions and threats.
Tehran insists that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful, in line with a religious fatwa against weapons of mass destruction, as well as the fact that it is a signatory in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Yet it faces constant threats of attack from Israel. Reports from last month cited US intelligence estimates as saying that Israel is strongly considering strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, which could potentially come this year.
“I warn all enemies that any threat being carried out (against Iran) will draw a tough, decisive, and devastating reaction,” the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Major General Hossein Salami, vowed on 16 March.
No comments:
Post a Comment