Threats from the Treasury Secretary… Psychological or Real?

Although U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to destroy Iran, the reaction of the Iranian leadership was markedly more furious when the threat came from his Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent. Negotiator and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf expressed his anger and announced that new plans would be prepared to confront these threats. Ghalibaf made a remarkably clear and significant statement, apparently directed at the Supreme Leader and the military leaders eager for war. He said: “Regardless of how much military strength we have, if the people are hungry and we are suffering from financial shortages and weak economic growth, we will not be able to endure.”

After failing to impose a military solution on Iran, the Treasury Secretary may prove to be the most effective of Trump’s ministers and instruments. Secretary Bessent holds the keys to the movement of money, and his words have not yet been exhausted as mere media rhetoric. His statements appear to have been drafted in the White House; he did not merely threaten to impose sanctions, but also vowed to bring down the Iranian regime. Trump himself has stopped short of directly threatening the survival of the regime. Most likely, what the Treasury Secretary said is part of a coordinated pressure campaign. Punitive measures will take a long time to produce their full impact, but that does not diminish their importance. Economic pressures were among the factors that helped trigger the first major protests in 2009, followed by a series of demonstrations that eventually contributed to negotiations with the Obama administration.

Tightened sanctions also have significant effects in psychological warfare. Although there have been relatively few objections from within Iran to the leadership’s insistence on continuing the war, most of the internal criticism and complaints have focused on the war’s repercussions for Iranian society’s living and economic conditions. The first such warning came from current President Masoud Pezeshkian, who cautioned about the impact of war on living conditions. The latest came with the appearance of former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, who criticized the negotiating policy itself and attacked its rigidity, risking accusations about his loyalty.

The Treasury Secretary has vowed that the Trump administration will impose on Iran “the greatest coordinated economic isolation in history.” It is not yet clear what these measures will entail, how long they will remain effective before achieving their objectives, or which countries will participate. Without details, they will likely be viewed as part of psychological warfare aimed at influencing Iranian negotiators to accept U.S. conditions.

On the other hand, the new threat is unsettling Iranian strategists who based their negotiating strategy on cornering Trump before the elections, hoping to extract further concessions. In anticipation of November, Iran launched a military campaign targeting Gulf states and shipping lanes, hoping to drive up oil prices and, consequently, energy and living costs in the United States, thereby threatening Trump’s electoral position.

This leaves us facing two wars: Iran’s oil weapon and, now, the U.S. weapon of economic sanctions. The question is not whether sanctions are effective; they are certainly capable of inflicting serious damage on Tehran. What is at stake is time. How serious is the Trump administration about adopting this approach as a genuine strategy rather than merely issuing verbal threats? And does this mean that the Trump administration has abandoned its plan of seeking a political settlement before the November midterm elections?

The Iranians regard the “time window” as their winning pressure card. They strike at every target they can reach in the hope of driving up U.S. fuel prices and threatening Trump with electoral defeat. When the Treasury Secretary announced a plan to isolate Iran and dismantle its economy, he may have been signaling that the administration is now prepared to challenge Iran’s strategy of playing for time.

Ten weeks remain before the elections, and current assessments do not suggest that Trump will lose them. Oil prices also remain below $100 a barrel. Yet the time remaining may seem like an eternity. Theoretically, time works in Iran’s favor until Election Day, but after that, the equation could turn against Tehran.

For Trump to continue walking this long tightrope for all that time, he needs sustained efforts to move large quantities of oil through the Straits of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb—something that could renew intense military confrontations. Recent military activity has helped reopen the Omani corridor for oil tankers, while Saudi Arabia’s willingness to take the risk of exporting through the Red Sea serves the required political equation.

Why is this politically necessary for the Gulf states? The reason is clear: Trump’s negotiators could find themselves at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the Iranians because the oil market could ultimately lead to the handover of the Strait of Hormuz to Iran and give its militias a free hand to operate against the countries of the region. In this Iranian game, the primary losers are the Gulf states.

Source: Asharq Al-Awsat