US President Donald Trump on Monday announced a sweeping 25 percent tariff on any country doing business with Iran, significantly escalating pressure on Tehran over its violent crackdown on nationwide protests.
“Effective immediately, any Country doing business with the Islamic Republic of Iran will pay a Tariff of 25% on any and all business being done with the United States of America. This Order is final and conclusive,” Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform.
Iran’s key trading partners include China, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq and India, all of which could now face economic consequences under the new US policy.
Tariff Move Linked to Protest Violence
The announcement comes amid growing international concern over Iran’s response to weeks of unrest, with rights groups reporting a rapidly increasing death toll as security forces crack down on demonstrators.
The White House said Trump is also weighing military options against Iran.
“Air strikes would be one of the many, many options that are on the table,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said earlier on Monday.
However, she added that diplomatic channels remain open, noting that Iran has been communicating with Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and is taking a “far different tone” in private discussions compared to its public rhetoric.
Trump Yet to Define End Goal on Iran
While Trump has repeatedly warned Tehran, analysts say the next steps depend on how the US president defines his ultimate objective.
It has been 10 days since Trump said the US was “locked and loaded” and ready to intervene if Iran’s clerical leadership continued killing protesters. Since then, hundreds of people are believed to have died, according to rights groups, while Trump has kept the threat of military action alive.
Iran and the United States have been sworn adversaries since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which overthrew the pro-Western shah. Any collapse of the Islamic republic would dramatically reshape the Middle East.
Despite this, Trump has previously cautioned against “regime change” as a stated goal, frequently pointing to the US experience in Iraq as a warning.
Military Action vs Diplomacy
Trump has also spoken about forcibly restoring internet access in Iran, which has been largely shut down to curb the protests.
The two governments have acknowledged back-channel communications coordinated by Witkoff, a longtime Trump associate.
Meanwhile, Reza Pahlavi, the US-based son of Iran’s last shah, has urged Trump to take decisive action, warning against the hesitation shown by former president Barack Obama during Iran’s 2009 protests.
Some experts argue that foreign intervention could tip the balance on the streets. Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations said US action against elite forces like the Revolutionary Guards could embolden protesters and influence undecided Iranians.
However, others caution that intervention could backfire. Sanam Vakil of Chatham House warned that US strikes could strengthen a regime already “paranoid” about foreign interference, leading to an even harsher crackdown.
Risks of Action — and Inaction
Trump ordered strikes on Iranian nuclear sites in June in support of Israel, signalling his willingness to conduct limited, high-impact military operations.
But experts say the scale of unrest — reported in 130 to 150 Iranian cities — makes meaningful military intervention far more complex.
“Trying to hit security forces in all of these places is more than just a few airstrikes,” said Vali Nasr of Johns Hopkins University, adding that Trump may prefer a symbolic or “performative” strike rather than a sustained campaign.
Others warn that poorly targeted strikes could scare protesters off the streets rather than empower them.
At the same time, inaction also carries risks. Analysts say failing to follow through on threats could reinforce Tehran’s narrative that Washington lacks resolve.
While Pahlavi and several Republican hawks oppose diplomacy, some Iran watchers believe many Iranians would welcome a deal that eases sanctions and reduces the risk of war, even if it temporarily benefits the current system.