US tightens economic noose on Iran beyond oil, targeting trade routes and crypto

The United States is tightening its grip on Iran's economy in ways that go far beyond the oil sector. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced this week that Washington is now targeting Iran's overland trade routes, cryptocurrency holdings linked to Tehran, and whatever remains of its shipping network. The move represents a deliberate expansion of economic warfare—layering new pressure points onto an already fractured financial system.

Trump's statement on Truth Social that he had no intention of launching military strikes before the midterm elections initially seemed to ease tensions. Oil prices, which had swung wildly during the week as threats to shipping in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz mounted, fell in response. But the declaration set off a different kind of debate inside Iran, one that reveals how some hardliners are reading the American position not as restraint but as opportunity.

A faction of Iranian politicians and commentators has begun arguing that Tehran should use the window before November 3 to launch limited pre-emptive strikes. The logic is not to trigger all-out war, but to inflict enough pain on oil markets and American interests to force Trump to negotiate on terms favorable to Iran. Abdolreza Davari, a politician, framed it starkly: Trump had inadvertently revealed a weakness by ruling out military action before the elections while simultaneously calling negotiations constructive. Davari saw this as evidence that Trump feared the electoral cost of war. "From today until November 3, a window of approximately three weeks has opened," he wrote, urging Iran to "intensify military action as a means of bargaining." Others were blunter still, calling for Iran to "grab the enemy by the throat right now."

Not everyone in Iran's political sphere agreed. Some warned that striking first would hand Trump a gift—the chance to portray the United States as the victim and retaliate before the elections, potentially gaining electoral advantage. Others pointed out that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been predicting an Iranian pre-emptive attack for weeks and "hopes this will happen." The debate exposed a real tension: hardliners saw a moment of leverage; skeptics saw a trap.

Meanwhile, Iran is already applying pressure through other means. Iranian officials and military forces insist the Strait of Hormuz remains closed to all but vessels Tehran authorizes, contradicting Trump's claims that oil shipments through the waterway have increased. Hassan Ghashghavi, spokesman for parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, disputed Trump's account, saying "the initiative in the Strait of Hormuz is in our hands." On Friday, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy said it targeted a liquefied natural gas carrier traveling south of the strait along what Tehran described as an "illegal route." More significantly, the Guards announced for the first time that they would no longer confine such actions to the strait itself—vessels using unauthorized routes could face punitive measures anywhere in the region.

This pressure on shipping gives Tehran a way to raise the cost of the blockade without necessarily launching the direct military strikes some hardliners are advocating. It is a form of coercion that sits in the gray zone between economic strangulation and open conflict.

The regional picture has grown more complicated with the operational launch of a defense pact among Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan, signed in August in Mecca. Under the arrangement, an attack on any one of the three is treated as an attack on all three. Pakistani and Turkish forces are expected to provide military, technical, and intelligence support to Saudi Arabia, including defensive capabilities inside the kingdom, though officials have said they will not take part in offensive operations in Yemen. Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei expressed concern about the deployment, saying the countries of the region should be aware that "any intervention in the Yemen issue could have undesirable consequences for the region."

Iranian lawmakers have been sharp in their criticism. Some dismissed the pact as merely symbolic. Others went further, arguing that paper agreements would not bring Saudi Arabia security any more than years of reliance on the United States had. But the harshest criticism has focused on Pakistan, with some lawmakers saying Islamabad should no longer be considered a mediator between Tehran and Washington but rather a "regional intervenor." Conservative commentators warned that Pakistan's alignment with Saudi Arabia could heighten sectarian tensions at home and bring instability to the Iranian-Pakistani border. The tone has hardened as the pact has moved from announcement to operational reality.