Did Iran threaten war with US and what does Trump’s reaction mean?

Neither side is actively seeking military confrontation, but US is bent on destabilising Iran through both psychological and economic means

Relations between Washington and Tehran have soured even further after US president Donald Trump unleashed an overnight Twitter tirade intended for Iranian president Hassan Rouhani.

“NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE”, the president tweeted on Sunday night.

“WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!”

Mr Trump’s remarks came after a speech from his Iranian counterpart who warned that “America must understand well that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars”.

The war of words is a marked escalation in hostile rhetoric between the two leaders at a time of increased tensions over the fate of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal as well as Tehran’s role in the conflicts in Syria and Yemen.

What did president Rouhani actually say?

The Iranian leader used a speech on Sunday to refer to Mr Trump’s aggressive anti-Iran stance, telling him “not to play with the lion’s tail”.

Those remarks, in turn, came after US secretary of state Mike Pompeo earlier in the day likened Iran’s ruling elite to a “mafia” and pushed for US allies to join them in stopping the purchase of Iranian oil products by the end of the year.

In his address to Iranian diplomats, Mr Rouhani did suggest Tehran was open to restoring good relations with the US, as well as with regional rival Saudi Arabia.

The possibility appeared to be shot down by Mr Trump’s fiery response, however, as well as comments from Khalid bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the US, who wrote on Monday that “it is encouraging to hear US president Donald Trump make clear that we will not approach Iran with the sort of appeasement policies that failed so miserably to halt Nazi Germany’s rise to power … we all need to unite on a broader strategy to address the Iranian regime’s destabilising behaviour.”

Could the rhetorical spat escalate into a real one?

Neither side is actively seeking a military confrontation.

On Monday, Iranian officials dismissed Mr Trump’s threat as “passive”, but the head of Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guards later accused Mr Trump of trying to wage "psychological warfare".

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters the president’s tweet was not designed to escalate tensions between the two countries.

“If anybody's inciting anything, look no further than to Iran,” she said, adding that Mr Trump has been “very clear about what he's not going to allow to take place”.

“I don’t want to downplay the comments, as escalation is always possible and hostile rhetoric can have serious consequences, but these remarks come in the context of US domestic politics,” Dr Sanam Vakil, an associate fellow at Chatham House in London, told The Independent.

“And on the Iranian side, the mindset from both more pragmatist and hardline politicians is that the Trump administration is so unpredictable it may be better to wait out his term and hope he doesn’t get re-elected, rather than rise to any bait.”

The Iranian rial, however, plummeted when markets opened on Wednesday to 92,000 to £1.

While Mr Trump’s remarks are markedly hostile, the comments have also drawn comparisons with the president’s infamous warning last year that threats to the US from North Korea would be met with “fire and fury like the world has never seen”.

Despite the tit-for-tat, Mr Trump and Kim Jong-un met face-to-face for a historic summit on peaceful relations and the de-nuclearisation of the Korean peninsula last month.

What does Mr Trump want to achieve in this war of words?

Eighteen months into his presidency, Mr Trump has followed through on campaign promises to be “tough on Iran”, pulling the US out of the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers that lifted crippling sanctions on Iran in exchange for curbs to the country’s nuclear programme.

The White House has promised further economic pressure will follow. It is not clear, however, whether the US’s broader policy is aimed at pushing Tehran into a new nuclear deal on Mr Trump’s terms and dropping its support for militia groups in Lebanon, Syria and Yemen, or forcing regime change altogether.

The goal of regime change is an “unrealistic” one, said Holly Dagres, a non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council.

“[The US] hopes that strangling the Iranian economy will push people into the streets and bring unrest, eventually leading to the collapse of the Islamic Republic,” she told The Independent.

“Trump's Iran policy is only rallying Iranians around the flag of their government, to the point that rivalling factions – the hardliners and pragmatists like Rouhani – are putting their differences aside to join forces to defend their country.”

It has also been suggested Mr Trump’s attack on Mr Rouhani was designed to draw attention away from criticism of his performance at a bilateral summit with Russian president Vladimir Putin in Helsinki last week.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders has denied the allegation.