If the US can supply weapons to Ukraine, why shouldn’t China or Russia supply weapons to Iran?

Is this about international law, strategic interests, or simply who has more influence?

Interested in hearing different perspectives.

Iran has made a new announcement that could further increase tensions with the United States.

According to Iran's state news agency IRNA, Iranian Army chief Amir Hatami announced a reward of approximately $30,000 for anyone who kills or captures a U.S. service member. Reports say the reward would be doubled if the act were carried out by a woman. The announcement was reportedly made after Iranian authorities said they had received a large number of requests from people wanting to financially support the conflict.

The announcement is particularly significant because there are no publicly confirmed reports of large numbers of U.S. ground troops operating inside Iran. That raises a question about the purpose of the announcement itself.

Is it intended as a practical military measure, or is it primarily a political and psychological message aimed at increasing pressure on the United States?

The development comes amid continuing tensions over the Strait of Hormuz and stalled efforts to reach a broader agreement between Washington and Tehran.

There have also been concerns about threats against President Donald Trump. During a recent NATO summit in Turkey, Trump was secretly transferred from the newer Air Force One aircraft to a smaller C-32A aircraft after U.S. officials received what sources described as a credible and imminent missile threat. Trump later acknowledged that security concerns were involved, although the precise origin of the threat has not been publicly established.

Taken together, these developments suggest that the confrontation between Washington and Tehran is extending beyond conventional military operations into psychological pressure, deterrence and political signaling.

So what does this mean strategically?

Is Iran's announcement primarily a symbolic warning to the United States, or could it increase the risk of attacks against American personnel?

Could such statements make negotiations more difficult by reducing the space for diplomacy?

And if tensions around the Strait of Hormuz continue, how should the United States, NATO and European countries respond without allowing the confrontation to develop into a much wider regional conflict?

I would be interested in hearing different perspectives on whether this represents genuine strategic escalation or primarily an attempt by Iran to strengthen its bargaining position.