Iran is sending a deliberately contradictory message to the region: its new security chief is warning neighbouring states against joining the United States’ economic pressure campaign, while President Masoud Pezeshkian is publicly defending a stalled memorandum with Washington as the best way out of the conflict.

Mohsen Rezaei, the newly appointed head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, made the warning in an interview with Iran’s state broadcaster that aired on Saturday, according to The Associated Press. He said countries that joined what Tehran describes as an economic war could be treated as enemies and threatened retaliation against oil-shipping routes out of the Persian Gulf, including routes that bypass the Strait of Hormuz.

That is a significant threat, but it is still a threat rather than evidence that Iran has begun attacking a new class of regional targets. The statement widens the political risk for governments trying to keep trade moving while Washington increases pressure on Tehran. It also places commercial routes beyond the strait inside Iran’s public warning architecture, even though the practical rules for shipping remain unclear.

At the same time, Pezeshkian has argued that a memorandum of understanding signed with the United States is the best path beyond what he called a condition of “neither war nor peace”. AP reported that the president said the agreement contained no provision amounting to capitulation and linked the deal to Iran’s economic prospects. The 60-day period attached to the memorandum ended last week without a visible compromise, particularly over the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

The two messages are not necessarily incompatible inside Iran’s political system. The president can present negotiations as a way to relieve economic pressure, while the security council signals that any attempt to impose terms through neighbouring states will carry a cost. Together, they show the space in which Tehran is trying to bargain: economic relief is desirable, but pressure that looks like coercion is being framed as a security threat.

A possible diplomatic channel is also taking shape. Iranian state television said Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, would lead a delegation to Tehran on Monday. Two regional officials told AP that the visit was part of Islamabad’s effort to reduce tensions and encourage a return to negotiations. The travel, meetings and any concrete message will need to be confirmed as they occur.

For the Gulf states, the immediate question is how to respond without turning a warning into a self-fulfilling escalation. They must protect trade and energy infrastructure while avoiding steps that Tehran could describe as participation in Washington’s campaign. For Washington, the problem is similar: economic pressure can be increased on paper, but its regional enforcement may create the very maritime and diplomatic risks it is designed to contain.

The next evidence will matter more than the rhetoric. Will neighbouring governments alter their sanctions posture? Will shipping authorities report new restrictions or incidents on alternative routes? And can Pakistan’s visit produce a channel that separates negotiations from the military logic of the war? Until those questions are answered, Iran’s latest signal is best understood as a calibrated mixture of pressure, deterrence and an open, if badly damaged, diplomatic door.