Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has threatened to strike United States military and strategic sites across the Middle East, as Washington waits for Tehran's formal response to its most recent negotiating proposal.

The IRGC warning marks a sharp escalation in public rhetoric from Iran's most powerful military force. The Revolutionary Guards are separate from Iran's regular army and report directly to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, giving their statements particular political weight. When the Guards issue threats publicly, it is typically a signal of hardline resistance within Iran's power structure, not just diplomatic posturing.

Where Talks Stand

The US has put a negotiating position on the table, but Tehran has not yet replied. That silence itself is significant — Iran may be using the delay to apply pressure, signal internal disagreement, or buy time while assessing its options. The Trump administration is waiting, which means the next move belongs to Iran.

The broader context matters here. US-Iran tensions have cycled through periods of near-conflict and partial diplomacy for years. Any talks now carry the backdrop of Iran's nuclear program, US sanctions, and the regional proxy conflicts that both sides use as leverage.

What the Threat Means in Practice

US military assets are spread across the Middle East — in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE, and elsewhere. An IRGC threat against these sites raises the operational risk calculus for American forces and their host governments. It also puts regional partners in a difficult position, since they sit between the two powers geographically and diplomatically.

Markets sensitive to Middle East stability — particularly oil — tend to react to credible escalation signals. The IRGC is not a fringe actor; it controls large paramilitary forces, missile arsenals, and proxy networks across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. A threat from the Guards is therefore taken seriously by security analysts even when it does not immediately precede action.

The key question now is whether Tehran follows the IRGC's aggressive public tone with a hardline negotiating response, or whether the threat is meant to extract concessions before Iran formally engages. Washington's next move will depend heavily on what Tehran puts in writing.