Iran vows retaliation to any US attack, rejects no-response deal claims

Iran warned that a U.S. military attack would trigger retaliation rather than silence. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said Tehran had already shown it would answer an attack. He described expectations that Washington could strike Iran without facing a response as an illusion. This matters because both sides are publicly defining the cost of escalation.

Baghaei said Iran’s response would be stronger if possible, but would certainly be equal if not. His remarks followed claims that the United States might target Pickaxe Mountain, also called Kuh-e Kolang. He also rejected reports that Washington had asked Tehran not to respond to a possible attack. Iran’s message was therefore both a warning and a rejection of restraint demanded by the other side.

The threat does not mean an attack is certain. It shows that Iran says military defense remains part of protecting its national interests, alongside diplomacy. Baghaei also said Iranian forces were ready for another Israeli attack. Continued U.S. actions, naval blockade, and threats make further escalation a persistent possibility in the article’s account.

The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow waterway between Iran and Oman that connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the wider Arabian Sea. It is one of the world’s most important routes for ships carrying oil and other energy products. Because traffic must pass through a limited channel, military tension there can affect countries far beyond the region. This geographic importance gives the strait major strategic weight.

The article connects the waterway directly to the dispute. Baghaei blamed continued U.S. interventionist and aggressive actions for insecurity in the strait. He cited a continuing U.S. naval blockade and threats against Iran as reasons for military readiness. Tehran also said it supported humanitarian shipments, including agricultural supplies and food-production materials, but argued that the deeper causes of insecurity must be addressed.

The article does not describe a closure of the strait. It says Iran called on the United Nations to prevent what Tehran sees as destabilizing U.S. actions in the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf. Any further military exchange could therefore raise pressure around a vital trade route and make diplomacy more urgent.

The Strait of Hormuz normally carries about one-fifth of the world’s petroleum liquids supply, according to widely cited energy estimates. That figure includes crude oil, condensate, and refined petroleum products moving through the waterway. The article itself does not state this percentage, so the estimate comes from established outside knowledge. Its importance comes from the concentration of energy shipments in a narrow route.

If ships faced attacks, delays, or restrictions there, energy markets could become unsettled and importing countries could face supply concerns. The article does not say that such disruption has occurred. Instead, it reports Iran’s accusation that U.S. military actions are causing insecurity and its call for the United Nations to intervene. It also mentions humanitarian shipments involving agricultural supplies and food-production materials.

The figure helps explain why local military threats can have international consequences. Iran and the United States are not only disputing military conduct; they are also creating uncertainty around a major energy corridor. Continued tensions could increase pressure on governments to protect shipping, prevent escalation, and pursue diplomacy before insecurity becomes a wider crisis.

A U.S.-Iran military exchange could deepen regional insecurity because Iran has promised retaliation and says it remains ready for another Israeli attack. Fighting could spread beyond the initial target through further strikes, military mobilization, or pressure on the Gulf and Strait of Hormuz. The article does not predict a specific outcome, but it presents several active threats and describes the region as not experiencing peace.

Energy and humanitarian flows could also face greater uncertainty. Baghaei blamed U.S. actions for insecurity in the Strait of Hormuz and mentioned shipments of agricultural supplies and food-production materials. The article does not report that supplies have been stopped. However, military danger around a strategic waterway could make shipping more difficult and raise wider concern about energy access.

Diplomatically, attacks could harden Iran’s distrust of Washington. Baghaei said the United States had repeatedly violated commitments, yet argued that diplomacy must continue if it can prevent escalation. Iran’s demands include lifting the U.S. naval blockade and ending hostilities on all fronts. Military exchanges would likely make those conditions harder to achieve.

The 2015 nuclear agreement, commonly called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, limited Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for relief from nuclear-related sanctions. This explanation uses established world knowledge; the article only identifies it as the 2015 nuclear agreement. The deal matters here because Baghaei said the United States withdrew from it in 2018 and repeatedly violated commitments, deepening Tehran’s distrust.

Iran said it had not entered nuclear negotiations with Washington and therefore had no details to discuss with Russia or other countries. Baghaei rejected claims that Tehran had softened its nuclear position. He said Iran’s seven demands were already reflected in a June understanding, including lifting the U.S. naval blockade and ending hostilities on all fronts. Washington, he said, must decide on those issues first.

This impasse limits immediate diplomatic progress. Iran says the latest U.S. message was insufficient and incomplete, but it has not abandoned diplomacy altogether. Baghaei argued that even a small chance of preventing escalation must be pursued. The future of talks therefore depends on whether both sides can address security demands and rebuild enough trust to negotiate.

Russia and China can provide Iran with diplomatic partners, economic connections, and channels for regional coordination. The article does not list specific trade deals or security agreements, so those broader roles should not be overstated. It does say Tehran will continue developing relations with both countries, regardless of Washington’s rhetoric, because cooperation is based on mutual interests.

Russia’s role is especially visible in diplomacy. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visited Tehran during regular consultations planned months earlier. Talks covered bilateral relations, the Caucasus, Europe, Ukraine, the Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran’s nuclear program. Baghaei also said Russia helped previous negotiations that led to the 2015 nuclear agreement and continues offering help to reduce tensions.

Iran nevertheless recognizes that Moscow and Beijing pursue their own national priorities. That means their support is not presented as automatic or unlimited. They can offer consultation and diplomatic channels while maintaining independent policies. For Tehran, keeping both relationships strong broadens its options as it confronts U.S. pressure, nuclear disputes, regional threats, and uncertainty around possible negotiations.

Retaliation works as deterrence when a country convinces an opponent that attacking will bring unacceptable costs. The goal is not necessarily to fight, but to make the expected consequences outweigh any possible benefit. A credible threat requires both the stated willingness to respond and the perceived ability to do so. This explanation uses established international-relations knowledge alongside the article’s example.

Baghaei said Iran had demonstrated that it would answer any military strike. He added that the response would be stronger if possible and certainly equal if not. By rejecting the idea that the United States could attack and withdraw without consequences, Tehran is trying to change Washington’s calculation before a strike occurs. The warning also addresses possible Israeli action.

Deterrence can reduce attacks if the other side believes the threat. It can also increase danger if each government interprets defensive warnings as preparation for aggression. The article shows both pressures: Iran says diplomacy must continue to prevent escalation, while it maintains military readiness. The balance depends on credible defenses, clear communication, and avoiding miscalculation.