* Iran warned that countries supporting US economic pressure could be treated as enemies and face retaliation.
* Iran stated it could stop oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz if the economic campaign continues.
* Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, stated that participation in or support for the US economic campaign against the Iranian people would be considered an act of war.
* Rezaei warned that if the economic war continues, not a single drop of oil will be exported through the Strait of Hormuz or from the Persian Gulf.
* Iran views any country's participation in or support for America's economic war against the Iranian people as an act of war.
* Rezaei stated Iran would first negotiate with countries that joined the US campaign and ask them to stay out of the conflict.
* Iran stated the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed unless the United States meets its commitments under a June memorandum of understanding.
* The United States and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding on June 18 aimed at ending regional war, including in Lebanon, calling for negotiations within 60 days.

Iran warned that countries supporting US economic pressure could be treated as enemies and face retaliation, specifically threatening to stop oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz if the economic campaign continued. This warning followed statements by US President Donald Trump announcing measures against countries providing Iran with economic support, which Trump termed an "ECONOMIC D-DAY." Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, asserted that participation in or support for the US economic campaign against the Iranian people would be considered an act of war.
Rezaei further indicated that if the economic war persists, no oil would be exported through the Strait of Hormuz or from the Persian Gulf. He also stated that Iran would target the interests of countries that refuse to comply with US actions and insisted that the Strait of Hormuz would remain closed unless the United States met its commitments under a June memorandum of understanding. The context involves an existing agreement signed on June 18 between the US and Iran, which called for negotiations within 60 days regarding regional conflict.

The dynamic presented involves an explicit escalation of the conflict framework from political maneuvering to existential threat regarding energy supply. The pattern observed is the utilization of high-stakes rhetoric—labeling economic action as "war" and threatening complete cessation of vital resource flow (oil)—to establish maximum coercive leverage against external actors. This framing shifts the responsibility for future outcomes onto the actions of supporting nations rather than solely on direct state conflict.
The narrative builds upon a pre-existing, albeit stalled, diplomatic agreement (the June memorandum) which is now being used as a benchmark for perceived US failure. The repeated emphasis on blocking Strait of Hormuz exports suggests an underlying concern that economic pressure can supersede formal diplomatic concessions, creating a scenario where non-compliance results in immediate physical blockage. This structure relies on linking international energy security directly to domestic political legitimacy by framing external support as an act of aggression against the Iranian populace.
The core implication for agency lies in assessing which actors benefit from maintaining this state of mutual, high-tension deterrence. When warnings are framed as consequences of actions taken by other states—rather than a negotiated settlement—the space for alternative negotiation diminishes. The pattern indicates a strategic deployment of fear to enforce a specific policy endpoint (US concessions) while simultaneously establishing an immutable boundary (Strait of Hormuz control). What remains to be explored is the actual viability and binding nature of these threats when confronted with independent logistical realities and the willingness of involved parties to shift strategies outside this established threat paradigm.