President Trump announced a sweeping trade embargo against Iran on Monday, acting as lawmakers from both parties urged him to respond forcefully to the deadly crackdown on anti-government protesters across the country.
“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,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
“This Order is final and conclusive. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
The announcement comes as Trump weighs a range of possible responses to the unrest in Iran, including both diplomatic engagement and military action. According to a source familiar with internal discussions, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and senior National Security Council officials met Friday to assemble a “suite of options” for the president, with potential airstrikes among them.
“One thing President Trump is very good at is always keeping all of his options on the table and airstrikes would be one of the many, many options on the table for the commander in chief,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday.
Although Iran is already subject to extensive U.S. sanctions, the newly announced tariffs could significantly deepen its economic strain, particularly as unrest has intensified following the collapse of the local currency.
China remains Iran’s largest trading partner, accounting for more than a quarter of its total trade, according to World Bank data.
Other key commercial partners include Iraq, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and India.
Questions remain about how rigorously the new policy will be enforced.
Trump has previously moved to penalize countries purchasing Russian oil in an effort to pressure Moscow over its war in Ukraine, but that policy has been unevenly implemented.
At least 544 people have been killed during Iran’s protests, according to the U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency. Of those deaths, 496 were protesters and 48 were members of security forces.
At the same time, Trump is considering diplomatic overtures from Tehran, Leavitt said, as he decides whether to authorize military strikes.
Trump has repeatedly warned that he may step in to protect demonstrators. Speaking to reporters Sunday, he said that “Iran called to negotiate yesterday” and that “a meeting is being set up, but we may have to act because of what’s happening before the meeting.”
Leavitt said the outreach was directed to special envoy Steve Witkoff and described it as markedly different from Iran’s public posture.
“There was an official from the Iranian government… that reached out to a member of the president’s very close team, special envoy Witkoff, expressing a far different tone than what you’re seeing publicly,” she said.
Publicly, Iranian leaders have struck a confrontational tone. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has said “we are completely prepared” for war, while parliament speaker Baqer Qalibaf warned that Iran would “discipline” Trump.
“Diplomacy is always the first option for the president… What you’re hearing publicly from the Iranian regime is quite different from the messages the administration is receiving privately. I think the president has an interest in exploring those messages,” Leavitt said.
She added that Trump “has shown he’s unafraid to use military options if and when he deems necessary and nobody knows that better than Iran,” pointing to the June 22 U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
“He certainly doesn’t want to see people being killed in the streets of Tehran. And unfortunately that’s something we are seeing right now,” Leavitt said.
Trump’s warnings of possible military intervention drew growing support on Capitol Hill Monday, even as an internet shutdown in Iran made it difficult to assess the latest developments on the ground.
“The reports coming out of Iran are horrific and absolutely unacceptable,” Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) told The Post. “Yet many people don’t seem to care unless it involves Israel.
“I urge the Trump Administration to take immediate action to stop the killing of innocent civilians who are demanding freedom and liberty.”
Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) voiced confidence in the administration’s approach, saying Trump “has made clear that America stands with the Iranian people and I trust him and Secretary Rubio to take the proper actions to support freedom.”
“After last year’s decisive strike and our recent actions in Venezuela, the Ayatollah should have learned Donald J. Trump doesn’t play games. Together, we will Make Persia Great Again.”
Some Republicans, including Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, have cautioned against escalation, but support for intervention appears stronger than during last year’s crisis in Venezuela.
“If it continues to make more sense, absolutely,” Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) told CNN on Monday when asked whether Trump should intervene. “Iran is one of the world’s top terrorist underwriters. You now have that poisonous regime in a spiral, so why wouldn’t we want to support that and those brave protesters?”
One of the most vocal advocates for decisive action has been Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a close Trump ally, who argues the moment presents a rare chance to reshape the Middle East and back Iranians who have lived under repression for decades.
“It is not enough to say we stand with the people of Iran,” Graham wrote on X. “The only right answer here is that we act decisively to protect protestors in the street—and that we’re not Obama—proving to them we will not tolerate their slaughter without action.”
“President Trump has been the first president to openly side with the people against the regime. That will be seen in history as the ultimate game changer,” Graham continued. “This is the best chance since 1979 to change the course of the Middle East. It is about acting decisively on their behalf.”
{Matzav.com}
