Tensions between the United States and Iran are intensifying, as the ceasefire between the two parties no longer signifies a halt to military operations, but has become a fragile umbrella for testing the limits of engagement. Within 48 hours, U.S. forces executed strikes described by Central Command as "defensive" against Iranian sites in southern Iraq, while Tehran responded by launching a ballistic missile towards Kuwait, which was intercepted by Kuwaiti air defenses.
These developments have shifted the crisis from a limited confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz to a direct threat of renewed war, raising a complex question: Is the ceasefire nearing its end, or have both sides entered a phase of negotiation under fire, where talks continue while limited military operations are conducted as needed?
Details of the Incident
Farzin Nadimi, a researcher specializing in security and defense issues in Iran and the Gulf region, believes the current situation reflects two separate paths operating simultaneously. Negotiations continue under the shadow of a shaky ceasefire, while limited military operations persist as needed, but under the ceiling of a return to full-scale fighting.
Thus, U.S. strikes do not necessarily indicate the collapse of the ceasefire, and the continuation of negotiations does not mean that the field will remain silent. Despite conflicting interpretations from the U.S. and Iran regarding the ongoing situation, Nadimi asserts that the U.S. strikes were "indeed defensive" and were a response to attempts by the Iranian regime to prevent ships from passing through the central or southern corridors of the Strait of Hormuz.
Context and Background
Iran seeks to impose new maritime arrangements in the Strait of Hormuz, while Washington aims to prevent these arrangements from becoming a permanent extortion mechanism. Targeting Kuwait in this latest round is a sensitive point, as it was deemed a suitable target for "limited escalation," given the involvement of U.S. forces in drone operations over the strait.
Tehran aims to establish a formula indicating that U.S. strikes will not go unanswered, but it simultaneously chooses a level of escalation that does not push Washington to resume large-scale warfare. However, the margin for error in this type of engagement remains wide.
Impact and Consequences
Washington insists on describing its operations as "limited" and "defensive," aimed at protecting the ceasefire. However, in practice, it targets the tools Iran uses to impose new passage conditions in the Strait of Hormuz. The broader question remains whether these strikes pave the way for forcibly opening the Strait of Hormuz.
Nadimi distinguishes between current operations and what may come later, as he does not see the current operations as "a direct precursor to forcibly opening the strait," but he notes that they "could lead, or should lead, to that eventually." At this stage, the White House does not want a large military operation that carries significant regional and economic risks.
Impact on the Arab Region
The complexities of the crisis increase following reports of Iranian-Omani negotiations regarding traffic management in the strait, raising concerns in Washington. U.S. President Donald Trump has asserted that the strait must be "open to all," rejecting any formula that grants Iran or others the right to control it.
Thus, the Strait of Hormuz is no longer just a closed oil passage but has become a test of the balance of power in the Gulf and of Washington's ability to enforce freedom of navigation without slipping into a full-scale naval war. At the same time, the Trump administration seeks to demonstrate its lack of urgency, asserting that "diplomacy is the first option," while linking any agreement to broad conditions.
In conclusion, the ceasefire has not officially ended, but it no longer holds practical significance. Washington strikes to prevent Iran from turning Hormuz into a tool of extortion, while Tehran insists on its ability to respond. The most likely scenario is prolonged negotiations under fire, with limited operations under the ceiling of major war, and a potential agreement that does not end the conflict but postpones its next explosion.