US President Donald Trump on Monday announced a 25 percent tariff on any country trading with Iran, ramping up pressure on Tehran over its violent crackdown on a wave of protests.

In a stark announcement on Truth Social, Trump declared the measure "final and conclusive," effective immediately, targeting all trade with the United States by nations engaging with the Islamic Republic. Iran's primary trading partners—China, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, and India—now face this economic penalty, which could disrupt global supply chains and heighten tensions.

This tariff salvo arrives as Trump weighs military options against Iran, where rights groups report a mounting death toll from the crackdown. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed airstrikes remain "one of the many options on the table," while noting a diplomatic backchannel via Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff. She highlighted Iran's more conciliatory private tone, contrasting its defiant public rhetoric, suggesting room for negotiation despite the rhetoric.

It has been ten days since Trump warned that the US stood "locked and loaded" to intervene if Iran's clerical regime slaughters demonstrators. Protests have since erupted across 130 to 150 cities, drawing in diverse groups beyond urban elites, fuelling hopes of regime fragility.

Yet Trump, wary of "regime change" pitfalls from past US misadventures like Iraq, has avoided explicit calls for overthrowing the post-1979 Islamic Republic.

Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the ousted shah, urged Trump to act decisively, contrasting his approach with Barack Obama's restraint during the 2009 Green Movement. Experts like Ray Takeyh from the Council on Foreign Relations argue targeted strikes on repressive forces, such as the Revolutionary Guards, could embolden "fence-sitters" and sustain protest momentum. Such intervention might alleviate fears among Iranians, potentially tipping the balance against the regime.

Sanam Vakil of Chatham House cautions, however, that external action risks rallying regime loyalists through paranoia, intensifying crackdowns and unifying hardliners. Trump has precedent for swift, limited operations: in June, he authorised strikes on Iranian nuclear sites to back an Israeli effort, framing it as a clean victory akin to his Venezuela interventions. Analysts suggest he favours "performative" strikes over deep entanglement to avoid quagmires.

Vali Nasr, a Johns Hopkins professor, notes that blanketing security forces across Iran's protest hotspots would demand far more than isolated airstrikes, straining US commitments. Behnam Ben Taleblu from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies warns poor targeting or intelligence could scatter protesters rather than amplify their resolve, while inaction might bolster Tehran's narrative of American bluffing. Even restraint carries risks, potentially demoralising demonstrators.

Diplomatic overtures persist, with indirect communications via Witkoff, though Republican hawks and Pahlavi decry them as a regime lifeline. Mohammad Ali Shabani of Amwaj.media contends many Iranians prioritise sanction relief and war avoidance over short-term survival of the Islamic Republic, viewing its end as inevitable. Trump must clarify his endgame—whether pressuring for reforms, restoring internet access, or broader strategic shifts—before calibrating force.

The tariffs, meanwhile, strike at Iran's economic lifelines, with India particularly exposed given its oil imports and defence ties. This move intertwines trade warfare with geopolitical brinkmanship, potentially reshaping Middle East dynamics if protests topple the regime. As momentum builds on Iran's streets, Trump's blend of tariffs, threats, and talks tests the Islamic Republic's resilience amid global scrutiny.

Based On NDTV Report