Iran’s President Pezeshkian Warns of Regional Instability Amid US Threats



Tehran says pressure and military posturing risk igniting wider conflict as tensions mount across the Middle East

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has issued a stark warning that escalating threats and pressure from the United States could push the Middle East toward a new phase of regional instability, reigniting fears of broader conflict at a time when the region is already grappling with multiple crises. His remarks come against the backdrop of heightened US-Iran tensions, ongoing wars in Gaza and Ukraine, fragile political balances in Iraq and Lebanon, and growing uncertainty over global energy markets.

Speaking at a high-level meeting in Tehran, President Pezeshkian cautioned that what he described as Washington’s “hostile rhetoric and coercive policies” toward Iran would not bring security or stability, but rather increase the likelihood of miscalculation and confrontation. According to Iranian state media, Pezeshkian emphasized that history has repeatedly shown that military threats and economic pressure only deepen mistrust and fuel cycles of retaliation.

A Warning Amid Rising Tensions

Pezeshkian’s comments arrive at a sensitive moment. Relations between Tehran and Washington remain strained following years of sanctions, stalled nuclear negotiations, and sporadic military incidents involving US forces and Iran-aligned groups across the region. Recent reports of US warnings to Iran over its regional activities, combined with American military deployments in the Gulf, have reinforced concerns in Tehran that Washington is preparing to escalate pressure.

“Iran does not seek conflict,” Pezeshkian said, according to official transcripts. “But threats and intimidation create an environment where stability becomes impossible, not just for Iran, but for the entire region.” He added that any misstep could have consequences far beyond bilateral relations, affecting neighboring countries and global economic stability.

Regional Flashpoints Add to the Risk

The Middle East is currently marked by several volatile flashpoints. The war in Gaza has raised tensions between Israel and Iran-backed groups, while cross-border clashes in southern Lebanon and attacks on shipping routes in the Red Sea have underscored the risk of escalation. In Iraq and Syria, US troops remain targets of occasional attacks by armed factions aligned with Tehran, prompting retaliatory strikes that keep tensions simmering.

Analysts say Pezeshkian’s warning reflects Iran’s concern that these interconnected crises could spiral out of control if major powers continue to rely on force and threats rather than diplomacy. “The region is like dry tinder right now,” said one Tehran-based political analyst. “Any spark — whether intentional or accidental — could lead to a wider fire.”

Iran’s Call for Diplomacy and Dialogue

President Pezeshkian, a reformist-leaning figure who assumed office promising a more pragmatic foreign policy, has repeatedly stressed the need for dialogue and regional cooperation. In his latest remarks, he called on the United States to abandon what he described as a “pressure-first” approach and instead engage through diplomacy grounded in mutual respect.

Iranian officials argue that sanctions and military threats have failed to change Tehran’s core policies, while inflicting hardship on ordinary citizens and destabilizing neighboring economies. Pezeshkian pointed to the impact of sanctions on energy markets, warning that further escalation could disrupt oil supplies and exacerbate inflation globally.

“Security cannot be achieved through fear,” he said. “It must be built through understanding, cooperation, and respect for international law.”

US Perspective and Strategic Concerns

From Washington’s perspective, US officials have long argued that pressure is necessary to deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions and curb its influence across the Middle East. American policymakers accuse Tehran of backing armed groups that threaten US allies and destabilize fragile states, claims Iran strongly denies or frames as legitimate regional partnerships.

While the Biden administration has left the door open to renewed nuclear diplomacy, progress has been slow, and domestic political pressures in both countries have limited room for compromise. Recent US statements warning Iran against further escalation have been interpreted in Tehran as signs of a more confrontational stance.

Regional and Global Implications

Pezeshkian’s warning highlights how US-Iran tensions extend far beyond bilateral disputes. Any direct confrontation could draw in regional actors, disrupt global trade routes, and send shockwaves through energy markets. Gulf states, many of which have recently pursued cautious rapprochement with Iran, are particularly wary of renewed conflict that could undermine economic diversification plans.

At the same time, major powers such as China and Russia have called for restraint, emphasizing dialogue over confrontation. Beijing, which has strengthened economic and diplomatic ties with Tehran, has positioned itself as a potential mediator, while Moscow has urged all sides to avoid actions that could destabilize the region further.

A Delicate Path Forward

For President Pezeshkian, the challenge lies in balancing firm resistance to external pressure with efforts to reduce tensions and avoid isolation. His warning of regional instability serves both as a message to Washington and as reassurance to domestic audiences that Iran will not be intimidated, while still advocating diplomacy.

Whether the warning is heeded remains uncertain. With trust between Tehran and Washington at a low ebb, and regional conflicts continuing to unfold, the risk of miscalculation persists. As Pezeshkian cautioned, the cost of escalation would not be borne by one country alone, but by an entire region already stretched to its limits.

In a Middle East defined by overlapping crises and fragile ceasefires, his message underscores a central reality: without sustained diplomatic engagement, threats and pressure may only deepen the instability that all sides claim to oppose.