Iran’s Warning to Neighbors Backing Trump’s Economic Pressure Campaign

Iran warned neighboring countries not to join Washington’s planned economic-pressure campaign. Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, said states that participated would be treated as enemies and that Tehran could target their interests, including alternative oil-export routes from the Persian Gulf. 27

What Iran threatened

Rezaei’s warning was aimed particularly at countries around the Persian Gulf. He said that if neighboring states joined what Tehran calls the US “economic war,” Iran would retaliate against their interests. He also warned that oil might not be allowed to leave the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, while alternative routes developed to bypass the strait could also be targeted. 19

The remarks represented a threat rather than evidence that every possible retaliation had already been ordered. They were intended to deter neighboring governments from helping Washington enforce economic restrictions on Iran. 23

Rezaei’s three-stage strategy

Rezaei described Iran’s regional approach as a sequence that would begin with diplomacy and escalate only if neighboring countries continued to support the US campaign:

1. Negotiate: Iran would first seek talks with neighboring countries to reduce tensions.
2. Persuade: Tehran would then try to separate those countries from the United States through diplomatic engagement, which Rezaei described as using “pleasant language” and allowing time for reconsideration. 2
3. Coerce or retaliate: If a neighboring state still aligned with Washington, Iran could move toward action against its interests, including possible attacks on alternative oil-shipping routes from the Persian Gulf. 79

Rezaei said Iran was not seeking to expand the conflict, but his sequence paired an offer of de-escalation with a clear warning of escalation if regional governments joined the US pressure campaign. 39

Why the Strait of Hormuz matters

The Strait of Hormuz is central to the dispute because Iran’s warning extends beyond financial sanctions to energy exports and maritime access. Rezaei insisted that the strait remained closed and warned that supporting countries could face disruption not only there but also along other routes used to move oil from the Persian Gulf. 19

That threat is significant because alternative routes cannot necessarily replace the strait’s full export capacity. An analysis cited by Al Jazeera said three possible oil pipelines could together handle about 9 million barrels per day, compared with roughly 20 million barrels per day through the strait. 14

The standoff had already sharply reduced shipping traffic, according to reporting cited in the source material. One recent day saw only four commodity vessels pass through, with no large crude-oil or liquefied-natural-gas carriers reported. 19

Tehran’s sovereignty argument

Iran’s diplomatic response focused on the US use of secondary sanctions—measures designed to pressure companies, banks or other entities in third countries that continue trading with Iran.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei called the policy an assertion of US “extraterritorial sovereignty” over independent UN member states. He argued that Washington could not lawfully force foreign banks, companies or airports to abandon lawful trade with Iran, saying the approach threatened the principle of state sovereignty. 1726

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi separately dismissed the sanctions strategy as destined to fail and characterized it as a familiar version of the same pressure campaign. 1

Together, the statements framed the dispute as more than a bilateral sanctions fight. Tehran presented Washington’s attempt to make other countries sever commercial ties with Iran as pressure on those countries’ own economic and political independence. 38

The wider US-Iran standoff

The warnings came as negotiations were stalled and the confrontation had widened into a broader war and maritime crisis, according to the reporting provided. Iran’s position was also sharpened by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the resulting reduction in commercial traffic. 169

Washington, meanwhile, was pressing other governments to choose whether to comply with the US campaign. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent summarized that position with the warning: “You’re either with us or against us.” 1

Iran portrayed the US strategy as an attempt to economically isolate the country, fracture domestic unity and encourage unrest alongside military pressure. That interpretation is Tehran’s stated view of Washington’s objectives, not an independently established fact. 9

The immediate message to neighboring countries was therefore two-sided: Iran offered negotiation and diplomatic persuasion first, but warned that governments joining the US campaign could be reclassified as enemies and face retaliation affecting their interests and energy-export infrastructure.