On August 20, 2026, President Donald Trump threatened an “economic D-Day” against Iran. In the past, Iran had a dual policy regarding U.S. economic pressure. A new era and a confident Iran could mean a modified version of that policy. A breakdown of deterrence and a sense of being antagonized often leads to escalation, and Iran is not an exception.
Before Operation Epic Fury, Iran had adopted a policy of austerity and retaliation. This meant producing necessities in Iran, trading with its partners, mostly in Asia, and retaliating against U.S. forces in the region through its proxies as a punishment for new sanctions, knowing that the United States would not punish Iran in return. The war has worsened Iran’s economic indexes, but Tehran believes that it has enforced deterrence against the United States by winning strategically and depleting U.S. munitions.
Tehran believes that it has enforced deterrence against the United States by winning strategically and depleting U.S. munitions.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned Trump’s announcement, warning that the responsibility of its consequences rests with the United States alone. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi claimed that economic pressure is a failed policy and an attempt to distract the U.S. public opinion, and that it will fail again.
Nour News, historically close to the Supreme National Security Council, posted on X in response to the president’s threat, “Trump has unveiled an ‘economic D-Day’ against Iran; the same Trump who was supposed to wrap things up with a military D-Day on February 28! That day, he misjudged Iran’s power of response and failed; today, he’s repeating the same mistake with sanctions and economic warfare. But this time, whose D-Day will it be?”
The post included a link to its editorial, “Trump’s Latest Gamble: D-Day, Economic War or the Beginning of a Second Defeat?” The article cited U.S. debt and the high cost of servicing it, the political pressure on the Trump administration ahead of the midterms, and the possible inflationary pressures of high gasoline costs in the United States—contrasting that with Iran’s capacity to absorb pressure.
Mostafa Hashemi-Taba, a conservative turned reformist who is close with former President Ali-Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, wrote for the same outlet that the policy of “neither peace nor war,” combined with mismanagement, is ruinous. Instead, he argued, Iran should accept a long war and adopt economic austerity as a necessary step toward prosperity and national honor, presumably through victory.
Khabar Online, close with the security establishment, cited American and Israeli foreign policy experts who echoed the Nour News editorial’s sentiment, casting doubt on the effectiveness of economic pressure. The independent outlet Fararu wrote that Trump’s declaration suggests that the war’s center of the gravity has moved from military operations to economics, but Iran historically has proven capable of circumventing economic sanctions. “China is the most important determining factor,” the article suggested. “If Beijing resists Washington’s pressure, a full implementation of America’s economic campaign will become difficult.”
Hossein Mohebbi, spokesman for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, stated that Iran has “more destruction weapons,” such as advanced long-range warheads, if military conflict resumes. The Islamic Republic News Agency also covered the recent Houthi attack against the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. Mohebbi said he is confident that Saudi Arabia will fail against the Houthis, just as Israel has failed against Hamas after “more than two years.”
The talk of “national honor” is a euphemism meaning “we can force our people to starve, but America cannot.”
In another editorial, Nour News threatened the “regionally isolated” United Arab Emirates for alleging that Iran shot two ballistic missiles, which Iran denies.
Iranian outlets are also extensively covering American politicians, news media, and foreign policy experts who assert that America is losing the war, as well as U.S. economic conditions, the reports of conditions aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, the munitions shortage, and the run-up to the U.S. midterm elections, expressing hope that Democratic wins will result in Congress forcing an end to the military operation.
Iran appears confident that it can weather the economic pressure and can escalate the war, if necessary, and survive it. The talk of “national honor” is a euphemism meaning “we can force our people to starve, but America cannot.” Iran’s success in suppressing the January rebellion and preventing any uprising during the war has eased the regime’s concerns somewhat about domestic turmoil. Its strategic victory in the war has also boosted military confidence and the assumption that it can win a war of attrition.
Under these circumstances, it is likely that Iran will escalate militarily to force America to ease its economic pressure, rather than agreeing to negotiate diplomatically and make concessions.
