IRGC threatens countries aiding US, says Hormuz will remain closed

After Iran fired several ballistic missiles toward a US military base in Jordan early Wednesday Tehran time, US President Donald Trump vowed to hit back hard.

Hours later, the naval arm of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced it had struck and detained three "offending" oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz.

Several analysts said the combination of the Jordan strike and Tehran's actions in the Strait of Hormuz suggested Iran was no longer content to react to US pressure but was instead trying to seize the initiative and reshape the course of the confrontation.

Political analyst Ruhollah Rahimpour told Iran International the overnight missile launches and the Hormuz operation reflected a deliberate strategy of escalation.

"I think last night's missile operations in Jordan and the Strait of Hormuz are part of the Islamic Republic's strategy of escalating tensions and trying to accelerate a full-scale war with the United States and Israel, forcing them into conflict before they are fully prepared," he said.

‘Ready for broader conflict’

Despite the latest escalation, Trump insisted talks with Tehran would continue. A day earlier, he told Fox News negotiations were progressing well but warned that if no agreement was reached, Washington could strike Iran's underground facilities, bridges and power plants.

The strike also marked the first time Iran had targeted a US military installation without first coming under direct US attack, although Tehran has repeatedly argued that the continuing US maritime blockade itself constitutes an act of war.

Political analyst Shahir Shahid Saless argued Tehran appears to have concluded that maintaining the current status quo is no longer strategically sustainable while Iran remains under severe economic pressure and a maritime blockade.

According to Shahid Saless, Iranian leaders believe that if Washington's strategy is to prolong a "no war, no peace" situation indefinitely, Iran will gradually be worn down while the United States enjoys the benefits of an undeclared ceasefire.

"From Tehran's perspective, this situation must be disrupted, even if the cost is a broader conflict," he wrote.

He added that renewed attacks carry only a limited risk of triggering all-out war while serving a more important strategic objective: demonstrating to Washington that it cannot unilaterally determine when conflict begins or ends.

Hormuz complicates diplomacy

The military escalation has unfolded alongside increasingly difficult negotiations over navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said Tuesday that Oman had proposed dividing responsibility for a new shipping lane equally between the two countries, but insisted the arrangement failed to address Iran's concerns.

Former Israeli intelligence official Danny Citrinowicz argued the latest attacks reflected what he described as a post-Khamenei doctrinal shift, with Tehran now prepared to initiate offensive operations rather than relying primarily on deterrence.

"Today Iran is also prepared to initiate offensive moves and to rely deeply on its missile array, drones and regional proxies,” Citrinowicz wrote on X.

"The leadership in Tehran is prepared to take significant risks because it sees the current confrontation as a decisive battle over its regional status and its ability to shape the security reality in the Middle East."

Former Iranian diplomat Kourosh Ahmadi argued Oman has little room to accommodate Tehran because of its obligations under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and pressure from Washington and regional states.

"The problem now is that the Strait of Hormuz has become an issue of prestige for both Iran and the United States, making it unlikely that either side will easily accept the other's conditions."

Regional conflict widens

Saudi Arabia announced Tuesday that it had intercepted several drones launched from Iraq towards Saudi oil facilities, blaming Iran-backed groups.

In response, Saudi and US forces jointly bombed positions held by the Iran-aligned Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) in Iraq for the first time, reportedly killing numerous fighters..

The US Central Command and Saudi officials described the operation as retaliation for more than 30 drone attacks over three days targeting US forces and Saudi energy infrastructure, allegedly carried out by Iraqi groups aligned with Iran under IRGC direction.

Iran's state broadcaster IRIB quoted an unnamed military official as denying any Iranian involvement in projectiles launched from other countries towards Saudi Arabia and calling claims linking Tehran to such attacks "a major miscalculation."

Commenting on the broader trajectory of the crisis, social media commentator Tohid Javadi warned that a much larger confrontation could lie ahead.

"A major—perhaps very major—conflict may be approaching. Under the current circumstances, neither the Islamic Republic can surrender nor does Washington appear willing to reach an understanding without extensive bombing and breaking a few of Iran's bones."

Speaking at a briefing attended by Iran International, the official said Trump and Netanyahu discussed three possible paths: reaching an agreement with Tehran, maintaining sanctions alongside intermittent military strikes, or launching a broader military campaign.

While stressing that the final decision rested with Trump, the official said the two leaders were aligned on the objective of preventing Iran from rebuilding its military and nuclear capabilities.

The official said Israel favoured maximising economic pressure while maintaining a credible military threat, arguing the combination would place Tehran under increasing strain without immediately requiring another full-scale war.

Trump, however, remained concerned about the impact of renewed conflict on energy markets and the global economy, according to the official.

Netanyahu acknowledged those concerns but argued they could be addressed by further squeezing Iran's already fragile economy. He also warned that Tehran was trying to use the Strait of Hormuz to extract concessions from Washington.

Tuesday's meeting—the first between the two leaders since the outbreak of the 40-day war on Feb. 28—came as Trump continued to pursue negotiations with Tehran while weighing the possibility of renewed military action.

Several hours later, Iran launched missiles at a US base in Jordan, its first direct attack on American forces since Washington paused strikes on Iran last Friday.

The official also addressed the condition of Mojtaba Khamenei, saying Iran's current leader was believed to be alive, although no one could confirm having seen him publicly.

According to the official, it remained unclear whether recent decisions attributed to Khamenei had in fact come directly from him. The official added that Khamenei had instructed those around him not to act without his approval and had become angry when that instruction was ignored.

The official dismissed reports that Netanyahu had presented Trump with a specific intelligence dossier on the underground Pickaxe Mountain nuclear facility during the meeting.

Israel believes thousands of centrifuges are concealed at the site but assesses that uranium enrichment is not currently taking place there, the official said, adding that intelligence sharing between the two countries occurs through established security channels rather than during leaders' meetings.

The official also said Tehran remained concerned about the possibility of a US ground operation targeting underground nuclear facilities and assessed that Iran's operational missile arsenal had been significantly depleted, with production capacity close to a halt.

The official described the Islamic Republic as being in its weakest economic and political position in years, citing soaring inflation, a deepening fuel crisis and a wave of executions.

The official said Israel viewed the continuing repression as evidence that Iran's leadership feared its own population.

On July 29, the administration's official daily, Iran, published four opinion pieces by representatives of four moderate and conservative parties, presenting the collection as evidence of a new political accord.

The paper argued that "the traditional pattern of political competition between Iran's two major blocs has fundamentally shifted," concluding that "what seems to have 'ended' is not reformism or principlism as political identities, but the confrontational style of rivalry that had turned these blocs into near-enemies."

The optimism sits uneasily with political reality.

Hardliners routinely accuse President Masoud Pezeshkian and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf of betraying the country because of their relatively pragmatic approach to negotiations and the confrontation with the United States, while state television, dominated by ultraconservatives, has repeatedly censored key remarks by both men.

Nor did the initiative reflect the country's current balance of political power. The contributors came from four parties that have largely been sidelined since at least 2020 and no longer reflect the real distribution of influence in presidential or parliamentary politics.

The ultraconservative Paydari Party, arguably the most influential ideological force in today's parliament, and the centrist Executives of Reconstruction Party were both absent, whether by exclusion or choice.

The paper nonetheless argued that "the pressures of war and national security crises pushed both sides toward cooperation, reducing polarization and enabling decisions that required broad consensus."

Yet it also acknowledged that Paydari—described as "a small but loud minority" enjoying disproportionate influence through state broadcasting—stood outside the initiative.

Rather than demonstrating broad political consensus, the exercise illustrated its limits. Three of the four essays were written not by party leaders but by deputies or senior members of organisations that have played only marginal roles in Iranian politics for nearly two decades.

The four contributors differed in emphasis but converged on a common message.

Mahmoud Vaezi argued that, amid hybrid warfare and economic pressure, Iran needed rationality, restraint and an end to factional competition. Alireza Khojastehpour called for what he described as "revolutionary rationality." Mohammad Sadegh Javadi-Hessar framed moderation as a religious imperative, while Mohammad Ali Amani argued that resilience depended less on military power than on social cohesion.

Collectively, the essays portrayed moderation as a strategic necessity rooted in political experience, revolutionary reasoning and religious ethics. Extremism was presented as corrosive, narrowing political choices, deepening polarization and eroding public trust.

Yet the initiative may reveal less about the emergence of a new political consensus than about the administration's effort to reinforce its case for a more moderate course.

Facing the prospect of war, worsening economic pressures and relentless attacks from powerful hardline factions, Pezeshkian appears to be seeking validation for a strategy that many of the country's most influential political actors remain unwilling to embrace.

The country's most influential ultraconservative factions, their media allies and an IRGC that increasingly acts as a political institution in its own right were absent from the discussion.

They are also the actors least likely to look to the government's flagship newspaper for lessons in moderation.

As Trump prepared to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Tuesday, he again warned that if Tehran refused to reach a nuclear deal, the United States would "finish the job."

The question became more urgent after Iran's surprise strike on US forces in Jordan—the Islamic Republic's first preemptive attack of the war rather than a retaliatory one—prompted Trump to declare the United States would "beat the fu*king sh*t out of" Iran.

"It's not just the nuclear program," said retired Admiral Robert Harward, a former deputy commander of US Central Command, arguing that Iran must lose not only its ability to build a nuclear weapon but also its capacity to threaten the region through missiles, drones and proxy forces.

Harward, a retired US Navy SEAL who lived in Iran before the 1979 revolution, said any lasting solution would require dismantling Tehran's broader military architecture, securing freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz and limiting its ability to project force across the Middle East.

"I think when President Trump says 'finish the job,' he does mean something beyond that," he said.

Trump has never publicly defined the phrase, leaving it open to a range of military and political interpretations. While some see it as shorthand for permanently dismantling Iran's nuclear programme, others argue it points to a broader effort to weaken Tehran's ability to threaten its neighbours and rebuild after the war.

Blaise Misztal, vice president for policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), argued that Iran's nuclear programme is ultimately a symptom rather than the underlying problem.

"So long as that regime is in power, we're going to continue to be under threat," he said.

Harward went further, arguing that "a change of government in Tehran has to be the ultimate end state" because only a different government could permanently redirect Iran's resources away from military confrontation and toward rebuilding the country.

Neither expert presented regime change as current US policy. Trump himself has stopped short of making that case, even as his rhetoric has grown increasingly aggressive.

Earlier this week, Trump suggested the United States could strike Iran's bridges, infrastructure and power plants while insisting he wanted to avoid harming the Iranian people.

Harward argued those comments point not simply to an expanded bombing campaign but to a strategy of economic and military isolation.

"I'd like to see them shut down the airspace. I'd like to see them shut down the borders," he said, arguing that restricting the state's ability to move goods, people and military equipment could prove as consequential as direct military strikes.

Harward also raised the possibility of limited ground operations. Distinguishing them from the large-scale invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan, he described highly targeted missions to seize or destroy specific military objectives as "a very viable option."

The broadest interpretation of Trump's slogan concerns the future of the Islamic Republic itself. For now, however, his repeated promise to "finish the job" remains deliberately open-ended.

Whether it ultimately means dismantling Iran's nuclear programme, crippling its military capabilities or creating the conditions for political change may depend less on Trump's rhetoric than on how the war itself unfolds.

The Treasury Department said the measures target two Iranian firms it accused of helping the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) extort commercial vessels by requiring them to purchase maritime insurance to transit the strait, alongside eight shipping companies operating tankers that transported Iranian crude oil and petroleum products.

The sanctions also block eight vessels that Washington said carried millions of barrels of Iranian oil, mostly to China, as part of what it describes as Tehran's "shadow fleet" used to circumvent international sanctions.

"With its economy in freefall and inflation in the triple digits, the regime is desperate for cash," Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said.

"The United States will not allow Iran to hold global commerce hostage or use international shipping to finance the IRGC's terrorism, aggression, and repression."

According to the Treasury, the Persian Gulf Marine Insurance Company and HormuzSafe Marine Services Authority broker IRGC-approved insurance policies for commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz, including payments in digital assets such as Bitcoin designed to evade sanctions.

The department said the scheme allows Tehran to generate revenue while tightening its control over shipping through the waterway.

On Wednesday, the IRGC Navy said it had "targeted and stopped" three oil tankers after they ignored warnings and used what it described as an unsafe route through the Strait of Hormuz.

It did not identify the vessels or disclose their ownership or destination, but warned that what it called "illegal interventions and orders" by the United States would not go unanswered.

Treasury also sanctioned eight shipping companies linked to tankers transporting Iranian crude oil and petroleum products.

It said it has now sanctioned more than 100 vessels tied to Iran's shadow fleet since the beginning of the year, describing the network as a key source of revenue for Tehran despite existing sanctions.

The Strait of Hormuz has become one of the central flashpoints in the conflict in recent weeks.

Iran has sought to tighten control over commercial shipping by introducing mandatory insurance requirements, challenging alternative transit routes and stopping vessels it says violate its navigation rules, while US-led naval forces have stepped up operations to keep the waterway open.

Roughly a fifth of global oil consumption normally passes through the strait.

The latest measures were imposed under Executive Order 13902, which targets Iran's petroleum and petrochemical sectors as part of the Trump administration's renewed "maximum pressure" campaign.