Donald Trump, who has consistently made threatening rhetoric, military posturing and maximum pressure central to his positions toward Iran, has this time put Iran’s economy at the center of his remarks, using language different from that of the past. In a post on Truth Social, while repeating his claim that Iran has engaged in “bad” behavior over the past 51 years, he published a chart showing the rial’s decline in value. The chart was titled “Iran Has No Money” and described the Iranian currency as “worthless.” Trump also claimed in a brief interview with Axios that Iran is facing “massive inflation” and has no money to pay its forces.
This shift in rhetoric cannot be viewed merely as an economic assessment or a comment on Iran’s cost-of-living conditions. Behind these statements are signs of a US effort to shift the arena of confrontation from the military and diplomatic spheres to the economy and public perception, a phase that can be regarded as a new stage of hybrid warfare against Iran.
Economy: A Cover for Failure on the Battlefield and in Diplomacy
Trump’s economic claims come as his stated objectives toward Iran, ranging from destroying infrastructure and weakening the Islamic Republic to gaining control over Iran’s resources and ensuring the superiority of the Zionist regime, have not produced the results Washington expected on the ground. Iran has managed to alter the equation by relying on unity in the battlefield, on the streets and in diplomacy, as well as through the prudent management of its geopolitical capabilities; a situation that, ultimately, means nothing short of a major setback for Washington.
This setback has come alongside a depletion of US weapons stocks and the heavy costs of war, while in the diplomatic arena, Iran’s resistance has also prevented Washington from achieving its intended objectives. For this reason, Trump is looking more than ever to the economic sphere to manufacture an achievement, an arena that can create an image of “victory” for the US domestic audience without highlighting the real costs of military and diplomatic confrontation.
In this context, CENTCOM’s claims that the maritime blockade has been effective and that 55 Iranian vessels were diverted could also constitute another link in the same narrative-building effort, one that seeks to recast failures on the battlefield as economic success.
When US Crisis Is Hidden Behind Iran’s Statistics
Trump’s emphasis on Iran’s economic problems comes as the US economy itself is grappling with serious challenges. Inflation, rising fuel costs and higher prices for goods remain major concerns for American society, and even a number of members of Congress have warned about the continuation of these conditions. From this perspective, Trump faces a serious challenge ahead of the congressional midterm elections, and efforts to showcase a foreign-policy achievement could be part of his response to this political pressure.
The important difference between Iran and the US also becomes apparent at this point. Despite economic pressures, Iranian society has repeatedly demonstrated that in the face of external threats and aggression, it places national unity above internal divisions and possesses considerable capacity for resilience. By contrast, the US government must explain the economic consequences of its warmongering and foreign policy to public opinion, an issue that could carry a heavy political cost for the White House.
Iran’s Economy: The Main Battleground in the New Phase of Pressure
What emerges from Trump’s recent statements and those of other US officials is that Iran’s economy is becoming one of the main pillars of Washington’s pressure strategy. Intensified sanctions, restrictions on oil sales, pressure on foreign trade and efforts to disrupt foreign-exchange flows are components of economic warfare whose ultimate objective is to increase pressure on people’s livelihoods and turn economic difficulties into a social and security crisis.
This strategy is not limited to Trump or the Republicans; rather, it is rooted in a bipartisan approach toward Iran. Congress’s simultaneous efforts to impose pressure on Iran and Russia, along with statements by some Democratic figures calling for intensified economic pressure, indicate that the use of economic tools to pressure Tehran extends beyond partisan competition in Washington.
Economic Posture: Iran’s Response to Hybrid Warfare
The exposure of this strategy underscores the need to redefine Iran’s economic posture. Military strength, particularly in safeguarding Iran’s geopolitical capabilities and the Strait of Hormuz, must be accompanied by a coherent economic strategy. But this wartime posture does not mean shifting the cost of war onto people’s livelihoods or relying on society’s “resilience” to justify inflation and rising prices.
The core of this strategy should be based on activating domestic capacities, leveraging Iran’s regional and geopolitical position, expanding cooperation with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS and Eurasia, seriously combating corruption and rent-seeking through cooperation between the government and the judiciary, avoiding shock therapy and abrupt decisions concerning strategic goods such as gasoline, and moving away from neoliberal capitalist policies that place uncontrolled price liberalization ahead of people’s livelihoods.
Ultimately, economic warfare, like military warfare, cannot succeed without the participation of the people. The basis for such participation is not imposing greater pressure, but building trust, ensuring transparency and economic justice, and creating a genuine sense among the people that they have a stake in economic resistance. If the US has turned Iran’s economy into a new arena of confrontation, an effective response must also begin with the economy, an economy that is not a casualty of war, but one of the pillars of national power.