Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) publicly rebuked remarks by U.S. President Donald Trump suggesting that hostilities with Iran might soon wind down, declaring that any end to the fighting will be determined by Tehran. An IRGC spokesman accused Trump of attempting to impose psychological pressure through “lies and deception,” and insisted that Iran would resist U.S. and Israeli actions with courage and resolve.
The exchange followed a televised interview in which Trump told a CBS reporter he thought “this war is pretty much over.” Washington’s rhetoric in recent days has also included stark threats: Trump warned that any Iranian attempt to obstruct oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz would be met with a strike “20 times more powerful” than previous action, and vowed on social media to obliterate targets in Iran, language likely intended as maximum deterrence.
Tehran signaled an escalation in its missile posture. IRGC Aerospace Force commander Majid Mousavi posted that Iran would cease launching missiles with warheads under one tonne, while increasing launch frequency, range and payload. The announcement signals both a capability and intent shift: heavier warheads and longer-range launches expand Tehran’s strike envelope and complicate calculations for U.S. and allied planners in the region.
The IRGC also sought to broaden the diplomatic stakes: it said that any Arab or European country could secure freedom of passage through the Strait of Hormuz simply by expelling U.S. and Israeli ambassadors. The comment is an attempt to apply pressure on third parties, highlighting Tehran’s readiness to weaponize maritime chokepoints and to frame its confrontation with Washington as one with wider geopolitical dimensions.
Taken together, the rhetoric and operational signals point to a high-risk standoff in which both sides are issuing overt warnings while calibrating options for escalation and deterrence. For global markets and regional states dependent on Gulf oil exports, the immediate concern is that miscalculation—whether from a tightened naval encounter or an overread of public threats—could quickly translate into kinetic confrontation. For diplomats, the episode underscores how public messaging and social-media proclamations now play as large a role as closed-door bargaining in managing crises between Tehran and Washington.