Trump's Moves on Iran - Pressure, Threats and the Risk of Escalation 25 % Tariffs On Countries Dealing With Iran

13th January 2026

Donald Trump's recent actions toward Iran mark a sharp escalation in tensions between Washington and Tehran, reviving a confrontational approach that defined much of his earlier presidency. Through a combination of economic pressure, military threats and limited diplomatic signalling, the Trump administration has sought to force Iran into strategic concessions while warning that failure to comply could lead to direct conflict.

At the centre of Trump’s strategy is the revival of the so-called "maximum pressure" policy. This approach is designed to weaken Iran economically, restrict its regional influence and prevent it from advancing its nuclear programme. The administration has re-imposed and expanded sanctions, targeting Iranian oil exports, financial institutions and state-linked industries. Officials argue that these measures are intended to deprive the Iranian government of the resources it needs to fund military activity and nuclear development.

One of the most controversial elements of Trump’s recent policy is the announcement of a 25 per cent tariff on countries that continue to do business with Iran.

Unlike traditional sanctions, which focus on Iran itself, this move targets third-party states, including major economies such as China, India and Turkey. The tariff is intended to further isolate Tehran by discouraging international trade and investment, but it has raised concerns about potential fallout for global trade relations and U.S. alliances.

Alongside economic pressure, the administration has deliberately increased the intensity of its military rhetoric. The White House has stated that the United States is prepared to use force if Iran crosses certain red lines, particularly in relation to its nuclear programme or regional military activity. While officials maintain that diplomacy remains preferable, the explicit emphasis on military options marks a significant escalation and increases the risk of miscalculation on both sides.

This rhetoric comes amid heightened instability inside Iran itself. Widespread protests, driven by economic hardship and political repression, have posed one of the most serious internal challenges to the Iranian leadership in years. Trump has publicly expressed support for Iranian demonstrators and criticised the government’s violent crackdown, framing U.S. pressure as a response not only to nuclear concerns but also to human rights abuses. Critics, however, argue that external pressure may strengthen hardliners within Iran rather than weaken them.

Despite the confrontational tone, there are signs that diplomatic channels remain open. Iranian officials have reportedly signalled a willingness to explore negotiations, even while warning that Iran is prepared for conflict if attacked. Communication through intermediaries, including regional actors such as Oman, suggests that both sides are attempting to manage escalation while maintaining firm public positions. This dual approach reflects a familiar pattern in U.S.-Iran relations: public hostility combined with quiet back-channel diplomacy.

Trump’s current posture cannot be separated from the longer history of U.S. policy toward Iran. During previous periods of heightened tension, Washington has used a mix of sanctions, covert action and, in some cases, direct military strikes to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. These actions have failed to produce a lasting settlement, instead contributing to cycles of escalation and partial de-escalation. The collapse of earlier nuclear agreements continues to shape mistrust on both sides.

International reaction to Trump’s moves has been mixed. Some U.S. allies have expressed concern that sweeping tariffs and military threats could destabilise the Middle East and undermine diplomatic efforts.

Others worry about the precedent set by penalising third countries for engaging in lawful trade. Within the United States, lawmakers from both parties have questioned the extent of presidential authority to initiate military action without congressional approval.

Trump’s approach to Iran combines economic coercion, aggressive signalling and limited diplomatic engagement. The strategy aims to force Tehran into compliance by raising the costs of resistance, but it also carries significant risks.

As tensions rise, the line between deterrence and escalation grows thinner, leaving the region — and the international community — facing renewed uncertainty over whether pressure will produce negotiation or conflict.