Nournews: At a time when President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance had already spoken of entering a new phase of the war against Iran — an “economic war” — U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has also announced what he called the “largest financial assault in history against Iran,” while threatening countries that side with Tehran with isolation and punitive measures. The approach suggests that after setbacks on the military and diplomatic fronts, Washington is now relying on economic pressure to erode Iran’s social resilience and revive domestic discontent.

The Region Faces a Historic Choice

The United States has entered this arena at a time when Iran — a country with vast territory, substantial domestic capabilities, and decades of experience with war and sanctions — cannot easily be placed under economic siege. Against this backdrop, Washington’s move may be less a sign of an imminent victory than a costly attempt to achieve an objective whose outcome even Americans cannot be certain of.

The reality is that no effective economic blockade can be imposed without the cooperation of a target country’s neighbors, as the deepest and most extensive trade, security and economic ties are formed among neighboring states. At the same time, while an economic war against Iran may appear economic on the surface, its means of enforcement — particularly at the regional level — are largely security and military in nature, ranging from pressure on trade and maritime routes to pressure on neighboring countries.

This puts regional states before a consequential choice: whether to participate in a plan that could also put their own security and economies at risk, or move toward a multipolar order in which shared interests replace dependence on an extra-regional power.

Hormuz: Where Economics Meets Security

Under these circumstances, Iran’s response cannot be purely economic either. The recent warning by Major General Mohsen Rezaei that any country participating in or supporting the U.S. economic war against the Iranian people would be considered to be taking a hostile act of war sends a clear message to the region: security and economics cannot be separated.

He also warned that if the economic war continues, not a single drop of oil will be exported either through the Strait of Hormuz or from anywhere else in the Persian Gulf. This position should be assessed in the context of Hormuz’s strategic role and the global economy’s dependence on the security of this waterway.

Iran’s announcement of restrictions on vessels that violate arrangements established by Tehran for navigation through Hormuz also indicates that Tehran is drawing its red lines against any regional involvement in economic pressure. Therefore, the assumption that regional countries can align themselves with Washington against Iran without paying a price is both risky and detached from the region’s geopolitical realities.

A Major Test for the Global Order

The confrontation, however, extends far beyond the region. Bessent has explicitly warned that any country acting as a “financial lifeline” for Iran will face the consequences of isolation, arguing that a path toward sustained prosperity will be closed to countries that tie their future to Tehran.

This rhetoric effectively turns the economic war against Iran into a test for the entire world — a choice between two paths: a unipolar order based on Washington’s will, or a multipolar order in which countries can pursue their national interests independently of pressure from a dominant power.

On one side stands Iran, seeking to strengthen a multipolar order independent of hegemonic domination by relying on economic resilience, domestic capabilities, and its geopolitical position around Hormuz. On the other stands the United States, seeking to turn Iran into a model of failure in order to deter other countries from moving closer to Tehran or joining independent economic mechanisms.

A Choice That Goes Beyond Iran

This strategy does not target only China, Russia, or Iran’s close partners. Members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS and the Eurasian bloc — and ultimately all countries seeking to preserve their economic independence — face a historic choice.

If countries resist U.S. pressure to expand economic relations with Iran and recognize Iran’s role in managing the Strait of Hormuz as part of the regional balance of power, they could contribute to the emergence of a more multipolar and independent international order. Otherwise, siding with Washington could expose them to two costs at the same time: the security consequences of possible Iranian countermeasures and deeper entanglement in the U.S.-led unipolar system.

The issue today is not merely the economic war against Iran. It is about choosing the future course of the global economy and security order. Iran’s resistance to U.S. pressure could become a decisive test of whether exclusive dominance over the region can be challenged and whether the world can move toward an order in which the independence of states takes precedence over the will of dominant powers.