The continued airstrikes by the United States against Iran for a second consecutive day, involving dozens of aerial attacks, and Iran’s retaliatory onslaught of missiles and drones against American military bases in Gulf countries, has once again kindled the suspicion that perhaps the flames of war between Iran and America have started to rekindle.
This impression was further reinforced when US President Donald Trump, on the sidelines of the NATO summit, declared that in his view the reconciliation agreement with Iran has collapsed. However, on the other hand, he also made clear that the doors to negotiations have not completely closed — and this very paradox is the most defining aspect of this entire crisis.
Over the past two days, US Central Command has claimed to have struck approximately 170 military targets in various areas of Iran, including Bandar Abbas, Chabahar, Jask, Sirik, Abu Musa, and other coastal areas.According to Iranian officials, these attacks ravaged military installations as well as some civilian infrastructure, a railway bridge, and a fishing port, while 14 people were killed and 78 injured. In response, the Revolutionary Guards retaliated against American military installations in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar, although both sides avoided large-scale loss of life in their attacks. This very aspect underscores that both countries certainly want to demonstrate their strength, but also want to avoid a full-scale war that becomes uncontainable and once again unleashes the agony of the global economy.
If we review the Iran war that began on February 28 of this year, the reality that emerges is that in this conflict, which has dragged on for more than 100 days, the resistance, steadfastness, and national cohesion that Iran demonstrated proved far more formidable than the initial expectations of America and Israel — moreover, a popular uprising could not be incited either. It is said that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was convinced that after a few days of intense bombing, Iran would crumble internally, the public would take to the streets against the government, and the Iranian leadership would weaken. But in practice, this did not happen. Neither did the Iranian state disintegrate, nor did a popular uprising materialize, nor did Iran surrender before America and Israel. On the contrary, the situation reached a point where President Trump had to take the path of negotiations for a ceasefire and reconciliation.
Despite the recent attacks, the conduct of both countries mirrors a strategy of limited military pressure rather than full-scale war. America framed its attacks as a response to Iranian actions against commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran’s position is that all this tension is actually the result of a war foisted upon it by America and Israel. Tehran maintains that if it had not been attacked, neither would a crisis have erupted in the Strait of Hormuz, nor would global trade have been affected, nor would oil shipments have been jeopardized.
The Strait of Hormuz has become the epicenter of attention for the entire world at this time, because approximately 20 percent of the world’s oil, 20 percent of LNG, 30 percent of fertilizer, approximately 50 percent of seaborne sulfur, and 30 to 35 percent of helium supply pass through this route, and due to the war, shipping has been severely disrupted, thousands of sailors have become stranded in the region, while a surge has been observed in global oil prices, inflation, and economic uncertainty.
This is why not only Iran and America but the entire global community, including Pakistan, yearns for a swift end to this conflict. Pakistan played a pivotal role in brokering reconciliation between the two countries, while Qatar, too, setting aside the fact that American bases on its soil came under Iranian attack, continued to support negotiations and diplomacy.
It is also worth noting that both America and Iran are trading accusations of violating the MOU, because America’s position is that Iran did not ensure the free movement of commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran believes that America itself trampled the fundamental clauses of the agreement by carrying out attacks. This disagreement has plunged the peace negotiations into an uncertain situation, although neither side has formally announced an end to negotiations.
Politically speaking, President Donald Trump’s situation is not easy either, because if he fails to bring the ongoing crisis with Iran under control, the Republican Party could suffer crippling political damage in the upcoming midterm elections. In such a situation, not only would his position in Congress weaken, but political and legal pressure against him could also intensify. Perhaps this is why, on one hand, he makes strong statements saying that in his view the agreement has ended, while on the other hand, he also makes clear that American negotiators may continue contacts with Iranian officials. This betrays that Washington is simultaneously wielding both paths — military pressure and diplomatic negotiations.
On the other hand, Iran too is flexing its military capability and sending a message of resistance, but at the same time is also keeping the diplomatic front active by turning to the United Nations. This very dual strategy lends the current tension between the two countries a unique complexion, where wartime posturing and negotiations are proceeding in tandem.
Therefore, it would not be amiss to say that although the clouds of war are once again looming over the region, both America and Iran are well aware that a full-scale war could prove catastrophic not only for them but for the entire Middle East and the global economy. This is why, despite the recent attacks, both countries have steered clear of inflicting such damage on each other that would trigger an irreversible war. At this time, the real battle is being waged more at the negotiating table than on the battlefield, where the coming days will determine whether the region veers toward a new war or toward a lasting political settlement — a settlement upon which not only this region’s but the entire world’s economic future hinges.
