The United States has entered a new phase of military confrontation with Iran, with the US military reporting that it has struck 170 Iranian targets over the past 48 hours. This latest escalation follows a period of relative calm and a previously established ceasefire, marking a significant departure from recent diplomatic efforts. President Donald Trump, speaking at the Nato summit in Ankara, declared that the US-Iran memorandum of understanding is now effectively over. He characterized Iran’s leadership as “evil, sick people” and explicitly threatened further military action, including the possibility of a new blockade on Iranian ports, while simultaneously suggesting that negotiations could still be possible.
The current hostilities were triggered by a recent round of US strikes in southern Iran, which were a response to Iranian attacks on commercial vessels near the Strait of Hormuz. These vessels were reportedly targeted while operating outside of a designated shipping corridor. Late Wednesday, explosions were documented in three additional locations across Iran. On Truth Social, President Trump stated, “This is in retribution for yesterday’s bombing of ships by Iran. If it happens again, it will get much worse!”
Analysts note that the memorandum of understanding had been failing for some time due to a profound lack of trust between Washington and Tehran. Neither side believed the other was committed to the agreement, with Tehran doubting US intentions regarding sanctions relief and regime change, while Washington remained skeptical of Iranian compliance. From Tehran’s perspective, the US failed to fulfill the memorandum’s primary clause concerning the cessation of war in Lebanon, where Israeli forces have maintained operations. Additionally, disputes over the release of frozen Iranian assets and continued military threats—including public threats to kidnap Iranian negotiators during initial talks in Switzerland—further eroded the deal. On 7 July, the US revoked an oil export waiver for Iran, occurring as Tehran sought to enforce transit through its designated northern shipping route in the Strait of Hormuz.
The breakdown of this diplomacy has wider consequences, particularly as the credibility of sanctions relief as a policy tool continues to diminish. Tehran has concluded that such promises are too fragile to serve as a foundation for long-term security. This shift is occurring at a critical moment for global energy markets, as US strategic petroleum reserves remain depleted and global inventories stay tight. Because shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains below prewar levels, any prolonged disruption now carries a significantly higher risk of triggering a major global energy shock.
Tehran’s strategic approach has evolved, relying on three primary forms of leverage. First, it utilizes a regional network of military capabilities, including drones, missiles, and partners such as the Houthis, Hezbollah, and various Iraqi armed groups. Second, it maintains its nuclear program as a bargaining chip, which retains options for future escalation despite damage to declared facilities. Finally, its control over energy chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz has become its most vital asset. Experts argue that if the US fails to recognize how the war has fundamentally altered Iran’s strategic calculus, it will continue to negotiate based on outdated assumptions, leading to further agreements that neither party truly intends to honor.
Each side concluded that the other was pocketing concessions while withholding its own. Yet this mutual distrust is not simply a product of recent events. It reflects decades of failed diplomacy.
Sina Toossi is a senior non-resident fellow at the Center for International Policy, where his work focuses on US-Iran relations, US policy toward the Middle East and nuclear issues
