Donald Trump’s latest declaration that any country doing business with Iran will face a blanket 25% tariff on trade with the United States marks a dangerous escalation of economic warfare and a striking example of political duplicity. Announced abruptly on Trump’s social media platform, without legal clarification or formal documentation, the threat is not merely a trade measure. It is an attempt to collectively punish Iran and intimidate sovereign states into submission, at a moment when the Islamic Republic is already under immense pressure from sanctions, unrest, and the lingering consequences of military confrontation. At its core, Trump’s move exposes a profound contradiction in Washington’s rhetoric. While US officials publicly claim that “diplomacy is always the first option”, the reality is one of coercion, destabilization, and deliberate economic strangulation. This policy does not encourage dialogue or reform; it aims to collapse Iran’s remaining economic lifelines and to weaponize global trade against a single state. In this context, defending the Iranian regime is not about endorsing every internal policy of Tehran, but about opposing a reckless strategy that undermines international law, regional stability, and the principle of state sovereignty.
Trump’s tariff threat is especially cynical because it comes after years of heavy US sanctions that have already inflicted deep damage on Iran’s economy and civilian population. Iran has long been subjected to unilateral American measures that go far beyond multilateral agreements or UN mandates. By now threatening secondary tariffs on third countries – including major economies such as China, India, and the United Arab Emirates – Trump is extending US jurisdiction far beyond its borders. This “long-arm” approach, rightly condemned by Beijing, is a form of economic blackmail designed to force the rest of the world to comply with Washington’s political agenda.
The timing of Trump’s announcement is no accident. Iran is facing its largest anti-government protests in years, driven initially by economic hardship and now increasingly by political demands. Instead of allowing space for an internal, Iranian-led resolution of these tensions, Trump has chosen to exploit the situation. He has openly spoken of contacts with Iran’s opposition, floated the possibility of military action, and now tightened the economic noose. This is not support for human rights or democracy; it is opportunism. History has repeatedly shown that external pressure of this kind does not empower ordinary citizens – it radicalizes conflicts, entrenches hardline positions, and increases the likelihood of violence.
The recent past makes this hypocrisy even more glaring. Just last year, Iran endured a 12-day war with Israel, a close US ally, and saw its nuclear facilities bombed by the US military in June. These acts alone constitute a grave violation of Iranian sovereignty. Yet now, as Iran struggles with internal unrest and external threats, Trump portrays himself as a potential mediator while simultaneously threatening devastating economic punishment and hinting at airstrikes. This dual-track approach – smiling diplomacy paired with an iron fist – is the very definition of treachery. Trump’s record reinforces this interpretation. Throughout his second term, he has repeatedly used tariffs as a political weapon, targeting not only adversaries but also allies whenever it suited his narrative of “America First”. His readiness to impose sweeping measures without clear legal authority is now under scrutiny by the US supreme court, which is considering striking down a broad range of his tariffs. Trump himself has admitted that such a ruling would expose the fragility of his strategy, warning dramatically that the United States would be “screwed” if the court ruled against him. This is hardly the language of a leader confident in the legality or sustainability of his policies.
Against this backdrop, Iran’s decision to keep communication channels with Washington open appears less like weakness and more like restraint. Tehran has signaled a willingness to engage, even as it faces threats of further sanctions and military action. At the same time, the Iranian state has mobilized its supporters, as seen in the large pro-government rallies in Tehran. While Western media focus almost exclusively on opposition demonstrations and casualty figures – often without full context due to internet blackouts and information gaps – these rallies underscore an important reality: the Iranian regime retains a significant social base and institutional capacity. It is not the fragile, collapsing entity that Trump’s rhetoric implies.
Defending the Iranian regime in this moment means defending the idea that political change cannot be imposed through economic siege or external intimidation. The reported deaths and mass arrests during the protests are tragic, but they cannot be separated from the broader environment of pressure, isolation, and threat in which Iran operates. When a country is systematically sanctioned, bombed, and threatened, its internal security responses will inevitably harden. Trump’s actions contribute directly to this cycle. Moreover, the global implications are alarming. Iran traded with 147 partners as recently as 2022. Forcing these countries to choose between access to the US market and legitimate commerce with Iran sets a precedent that could be used against any state that falls out of favor with Washington. Today it is Iran; tomorrow it could be anyone. China’s response – rejecting unilateral sanctions and warning that trade wars have no winners – reflects a growing international fatigue with US economic coercion.
In the end, Trump’s tariff threat is less about Iran than about power: the power to dictate terms, punish dissent, and reshape global trade through fear. It is an act of betrayal not only of diplomatic norms, but of the very stability Trump claims to defend. Protecting Iran from this escalation is therefore not an ideological stance, but a necessary defense of international order. Without such resistance, the world moves closer to a system where might makes right, and economic warfare replaces diplomacy entirely.
Comments