The glimmer of peace that shone over the Persian Gulf less than a month ago is once again being overshadowed by the dark clouds of conflict.
On the 7th and 8th of this month, the United States struck more than a hundred Iranian targets. In response, Iran attacked American military installations in several Arab countries across the Persian Gulf region.
The root of the unrest lies in the narrow, only 22-kilometre-wide Strait of Hormuz, which connects the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea, with Iran on one side and Oman on the other. Control of this strait has become the new chapter of the Gulf War.
However, it would be wrong to blame the Strait of Hormuz, or Iran’s control over it, for the war. Iran took control of the Strait of Hormuz in response to what it describes as the unprovoked attack on Iran by the United States and Israel on February 28.
The Iranian takeover of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway for global trade, particularly for oil and natural gas exports from the Gulf, was a strategic setback for the United States. The events of the past few days suggest that President Donald Trump is now seeking a way to overcome that setback by freeing the Strait of Hormuz from Iranian control.
Since Iran and the United States agreed to a temporary ceasefire on April 8, there have been sporadic Iranian attacks on ships in the strait and retaliatory American strikes on Iranian military installations. Yet there was always a sense that the violence would remain limited and that the situation would not return to the all-out war of March.
That confidence deepened on June 17, when US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed a 14-point memorandum of understanding. The memorandum extended the ceasefire for another two months and laid the groundwork for negotiations on a permanent peace agreement.
‘They’re trash’
It is now clear, however, that despite ongoing talks under the memorandum of understanding, deep mistrust persists between the two sides. That is why there is a real risk that this week’s attacks and counterattacks could escalate further.
That concern has been reinforced by President Trump, who said at the Nato summit in the Turkish capital, Ankara, that the ceasefire with Iran was “over.”
“I don’t want to work with them anymore. They’re trash. You know what trash is? They’re trash. They’re sick, dirty people. And they’re violent, violent people,” Trump said.
Following such remarks by the US president, many fear that America’s military campaign against Iran could expand. Others dismiss the comments as characteristic of Trump’s habitual rhetoric.
In the past, Trump has repeatedly threatened to bomb Iran. He has vowed to destroy the country’s entire civilization and warned that only fire would emerge from Tehran. Yet each time, he ultimately backed down, citing various reasons.
The current situation, however, appears to be somewhat different.
Under the memorandum of understanding, Iran agreed to do its best to ensure the free passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz without imposing tolls within 60 days. However, because Iran claims control over the strait, it has instructed ships to use designated Iranian channels and coordinate with its authorities.
The current objective of the United States, however, is to end Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz without disrupting the global oil market. To achieve that goal, Washington has adopted a new strategy.
Turning the Strait of Hormuz into a ‘weapon’
With the support of the International Maritime Organization, the United States established an alternative shipping channel through the Strait of Hormuz off the coast of Oman. Iran, however, considers the creation of this route a violation of the memorandum of understanding.
On July 6 and 7, three ships were attacked by drones in the strait. The United States blamed Iran for the attacks and responded by bombing several locations along Iran’s coastline.
Not only did Trump fail to achieve his primary objectives during the forty-day war, but the conflict also enabled Iran to discover and deploy what may be its most powerful “weapon”: Control over the Strait of Hormuz and, by extension, global shipping through it.
The virtual closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent oil prices soaring, triggered volatility in global stock markets, and slowed international trade. Rising gasoline prices in the United States have also placed intense political pressure on Trump.
Growing public dissatisfaction over the Iran war has raised the possibility that Trump’s Republican Party could lose its majority in both chambers of Congress within just four months.
The United States accepted many of Iran’s demands in the memorandum of understanding. Many members of the US Congress, particularly those with close ties to Israel, have urged Trump not to implement the agreement. Trump wants to exit the war, but he also needs a tangible “achievement” that would allow him to declare “victory.”
He has abandoned hopes of overthrowing the Islamic government in Iran. He is no longer speaking about dismantling Iran’s missile industry. Instead, he wants Iran to end its nuclear program permanently. But Tehran is unlikely to compromise on the nuclear issue while it retains control over a strategically vital area such as the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump’s strategy
The principal challenge facing Trump now is to wrest what has become the “Hormuz weapon” from Iran. That has been the central objective of US operations since the memorandum of understanding was signed.
Iran has attacked American installations in the Gulf region in an effort to counter this strategy. Yet the current situation could expose Tehran to even greater danger.
Whenever a vessel attempts to approach the Omani coast using the new US-backed route instead of the Iranian-designated channel, Iran responds with an attack, sending a clear message that others should avoid the route.
Each attack on a commercial vessel provides the United States with a justification for launching even more damaging strikes against Iran. On the other hand, if Iran refrains from attacking ships near the Omani coast, it risks gradually losing its grip over the strait.
The purpose of the American counteroffensive is clear. US forces are targeting Iran’s coastal defenses near the Strait of Hormuz, its fleet of fast missile-equipped speedboats, and the missile and drone-launching infrastructure positioned around the strait.
In other words, the United States hopes to gradually destroy -- or at least significantly degrade -- Iran’s ability to attack vessels passing through the waterway.
At the same time, Washington has reinstated the previous embargo on Iranian oil exports, another move that Iran considers a violation of the memorandum of understanding. As a result, both military and economic pressure are likely to continue.
It will not be easy for Iran to sustain this calibrated level of violence. If it retaliates by attacking an American naval vessel, it could trigger a full-scale war. Yet failing to respond in kind would weaken confidence in Iran’s military capabilities.
For now, Iran has chosen to retaliate by targeting American installations in smaller Arab countries. However, maintaining that approach carries significant political risks.
Iran ultimately seeks long-term stability through a new regional security framework involving the Gulf states, one in which neither the United States nor Israel plays a role. But as long as Iran continues attacking these countries, the prospects for political compromise will remain limited.
At present, the power to expand the scale and intensity of the conflict rests largely in Trump’s hands. Yet as long as Iran can absorb the growing damage inflicted by American attacks while maintaining control over the Strait of Hormuz, Trump will be unable to declare the “victory” he seeks.
Sabir Mustafa is former head of BBC Bangla and is currently working as a freelance journalist and podcaster
