Iran Security Chief Warns Supporting US Sanctions Will Be Considered 'Act of War'

Iran's top security official has issued a stark warning to the international community: any nation that cooperates with the incoming wave of U.S. economic sanctions will be treated as an active participant in an "economic war." The declaration dramatically raises the stakes of the ongoing standoff between Washington and Tehran, effectively forcing global trading partners to choose between facing secondary U.S. sanctions or risking direct military retaliation from the Islamic Republic.[1][4]

The warning was delivered by Mohsen Rezaei, the newly appointed head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council. Speaking on state television, the former Revolutionary Guard commander stated that any country participating in the imposition of economic restrictions against Iran would be considered an enemy. He added that if nations refused to distance themselves from the U.S. campaign, Iran would actively harm their interests.[1]

Rezaei's comments represent the most extensive public remarks from the hardline leader since he assumed the post earlier this month. He explicitly threatened that if the U.S. administration proceeds with its plans, Tehran will retaliate in a "seismic manner." This rhetoric underscores a hardening of Iran's political and military posture, signaling that the security apparatus is prepared to escalate the conflict beyond its current boundaries.[1][2]

The immediate catalyst for the warning is the anticipated announcement of new economic measures by the U.S. Treasury Department. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is expected to unveil what the Trump administration has described as an "unprecedented" level of economic warfare and isolation. The U.S. strategy aims to cut off Iran's remaining access to global markets, leveraging the dominance of the U.S. financial system to enforce compliance worldwide.[2][4]

The mechanism driving this pressure relies heavily on secondary sanctions. Unlike primary sanctions, which prohibit U.S. citizens and companies from doing business with a target country, secondary sanctions threaten foreign entities with exclusion from the U.S. market if they engage in prohibited transactions with Iran. This legal architecture forces international banks, shipping firms, and energy importers to sever ties with Tehran or face devastating financial penalties.[3][4]

Iran's Foreign Ministry has forcefully condemned the impending U.S. measures. Spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei characterized the sanctions as a "declaration of war" against all nations, arguing that they represent an illegitimate exertion of extraterritorial sovereignty. By framing the sanctions as a violation of the United Nations Charter, Tehran is attempting to rally diplomatic resistance among countries that resent Washington's use of economic coercion.[4]

The escalating rhetoric from Iran's security and diplomatic officials stands in sharp contrast to the messaging from the country's civilian leadership. President Masoud Pezeshkian has continued to advocate for a diplomatic resolution, defending a mid-June memorandum of understanding with the United States as the best path forward. Pezeshkian argues that the agreement is necessary to move the country beyond a paralyzing state of "neither war nor peace."[2]

Pezeshkian's push for diplomacy is driven by the dire state of the Iranian economy. Nearly six months into the current phase of the conflict, the country is suffocating under existing sanctions and a U.S. naval blockade. The president has publicly acknowledged that Tehran cannot attract the foreign investment necessary to stabilize its currency and fund critical infrastructure while the threat of war looms over the region.[2][3]

The internal divide between the civilian government and the military establishment is becoming increasingly visible. While Pezeshkian insists that the supreme leader sets the policies and the government will follow that path, the 60-day period for talks established by the June agreement ended last week with no signs of compromise. The lack of diplomatic progress has emboldened hardliners like Rezaei to assert control over the national narrative.[2][4]

The military stakes are particularly high in the Persian Gulf. Although attacks on commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz have temporarily calmed, the waterway remains a flashpoint. Iran's recently created Persian Gulf Strait Authority has published a list of vessels it claims violated transit arrangements, threatening them with future restrictions or seizures. The U.S. military, meanwhile, continues to enforce a blockade that has redirected dozens of commercial ships.[2]

Rezaei has expanded the scope of Iran's threats beyond the Strait of Hormuz. He warned that Iran would target alternative oil-shipping routes from the Persian Gulf if regional states participate in the U.S. economic warfare campaign. This threat is aimed directly at neighboring Gulf Arab states, which have invested heavily in pipelines and overland routes designed to bypass the vulnerable strait.[1][2]

The regional fallout from the sanctions push is already materializing. The United Arab Emirates, historically a major trading partner for Iran, has suspended all trade and financial transactions with the Islamic Republic following recent missile tensions. Conversely, China, which remains the primary buyer of Iranian crude oil, has publicly opposed the U.S. sanctions campaign and called for a diplomatic solution to the crisis.[1][4]

Amid the escalating threats, regional mediators are scrambling to prevent a broader conflagration. Pakistan's army chief, Gen. Asim Munir, is scheduled to visit Tehran to facilitate talks. Islamabad has historically played a crucial backchannel role between Iran and its adversaries, and Munir's visit underscores the urgency of finding an off-ramp before the new U.S. sanctions take full effect.[2]

The ultimate trajectory of the crisis rests on how Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, balances the competing pressures within his government. He must weigh the economic devastation of further isolation against the ideological imperative of resisting U.S. pressure. If the hardline security apparatus prevails, the region could see a rapid return to the direct military confrontations that characterized the early months of the year.[3][4]