IRGC Warns Foreign Influence in the Strait of Hormuz

On Thursday, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) made a strong statement asserting that “foreigners have no interests in the Strait of Hormuz.” This was a clear jab at the United States, but it also responded to calls from China for an end to the regional hostilities.

The IRGC’s announcement came as tensions escalated between Iran and the U.S., reigniting this week after Iran’s forces attacked several commercial vessels passing through the Strait. These ships were reportedly from Qatar and Saudi Arabia, leading the U.S. Central Command to retaliate by targeting Iranian military assets. In turn, Iran has ramped up its air operations against neighboring countries like Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, and Bahrain.

On Wednesday, President Trump asserted that a ceasefire and agreement made between Washington and Tehran last month was no longer valid. He mentioned, however, that he had been in touch with Iranian officials who expressed a willingness to negotiate a “deal.” Last month, both nations had signed an understanding that Iran would ensure safe passage for commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz for at least 60 days while focusing on achieving a more comprehensive peace deal regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

The Revolutionary Guards, labeled as a terrorist organization by the U.S., criticized the American response to their actions and promised a “firm” reply to any Pentagon moves. They emphasized through the state-controlled Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) that Iran adheres to the memorandum and allows free passage of ships—providing those vessels first obtain approval from the Iranian government. They claimed that shipping traffic in the strait has reached about half of levels seen before the current conflict began in February and is “gradually expanding.”

IRNA reported the Revolutionary Guards as condemning U.S. “adventurism and interference” regarding shipping routes through the vital waterway, reiterating that “foreigners have no interest in the Strait of Hormuz.”

Interestingly, while the Iranian state media primarily singled out the United States, the timing of their remarks seems aimed at a wider audience. On the same day, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs urged both Iran and the U.S. to adhere to their memorandum amid escalating violence. Their statement, unusually neutral, hinted at some discontent with Iran’s aggression.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning commented, “Reigniting the conflict is not in the interests of any party. Military means cannot solve the fundamental problems.” They called for both nations to resolve their disputes through dialogue, steering clear of conflict.

China has a history of calling out U.S. actions in conflicts, often expressing frustration over perceived U.S. hegemony and advocating for more multilateral approaches. The recent language concerning the Strait suggests Beijing’s growing impatience with Iran’s ongoing hostilities, especially given the significance of the waterway for its crude oil imports. Reports have indicated that much of Iran’s oil travels through here to markets in the Middle East and Europe.

On Friday, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce announced a ban on helium exports, a decision considered linked to the uneven access faced by foreign vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. In economic news, there were indications that China’s producer price index saw a notable rise in June, the fastest growth since July 2022.

Complications arose in March when U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran resulted in the Strait closing, disrupting previous trends in manufacturing prices. This has added to the economic difficulties China has been facing due to persistent deflation pressures.

The status of the U.S.-Iran memorandum appeared uncertain as of Friday, with reports suggesting that mediating nations are preparing for ongoing discussions. Meanwhile, the IRGC has continued to issue threats against neighboring states, particularly with intentions directed at the U.S. President Trump referred to Iranian negotiators in harsh terms but maintained that dialogue was still possible.