The ceasefire was always on borrowed time, and everyone knew it. Now we have proof. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps says it targeted an American air base in the region following fresh US strikes on southern Iran, and Kuwait which hosts a US military presence reported it had intercepted “hostile missile and drone threats.” This isn’t a isolated incident. This is the second time in three days the US has attacked targets inside Iran, and the rhythm of escalation suggests neither side is particularly interested in backing down.
According to BBC reporting, the US military said it shot down Iranian drones over the Strait of Hormuz and struck a military site in Bandar Abbas, a strategic port city on the Persian Gulf. Centcom, the US Central Command, said the site was about to launch a fifth drone when it was hit. Iranian media reported explosions east of the city. The IRGC response came swiftly, claiming it had targeted “an American air base that served as the source of the attack” on Bandar Abbas, according to state broadcaster IRIB.
Let’s be clear about what happened here. The US framed these strikes as “measured, purely defensive, and intended to maintain the ceasefire.” That’s quite a stretch. You don’t maintain a ceasefire by launching missiles into another country’s territory, even if you call it self-defense. Centcom also said its forces shot down four Iranian one-way attack drones that posed a threat around the Strait of Hormuz. So now we’re in a situation where both sides are claiming defensive postures while trading blows. Convenient, that.
TheIranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baqai condemned the US strikes and called them a violation of the ceasefire. He added that the Islamic republic would “take all necessary measures to defend its national sovereignty.” That’s the kind of language that tends to precede further escalation, not de-escalation.
This week’s actions follow an earlier round of “self-defence” strikes on Monday, when the US targeted Iranian missile sites and boats attempting to lay mines in the Strait. Thousands of commercial tanker ships are stranded because of the conflict. One-fifth of the world’s liquefied natural gas and oil normally pass through that shipping channel, and its closure has already impacted global fuel trade. The economic consequences are immediate and far-reaching, even if they rarely make the headlines the way missile strikes do.
The US also imposed sanctions on the “Persian Gulf Strait Authority,” the Iranian body tasked with collecting payments from ships travelling through the Strait of Hormuz. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent described it as “the Iranian military’s latest attempt to extort global maritime trade” and “proof” Iran is “desperate for cash.” Meanwhile, Iranian officials say they’re simply collecting fees for “navigational services.” It’s a classic dispute over who controls one of the world’s most critical chokepoints, and both sides are digging in.
President Donald Trump, during a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, said Iran is “negotiating on fumes” and insisted his war strategy won’t be impacted by November’s US midterm elections. “Maybe we have to go back and finish it, maybe we don’t,” he said. That’s the kind of ambiguity you’d expect from someone keeping all options on the table, though it does little for anyone hoping for clarity on where this is headed.
Late last week, both sides hinted that progress had been made toward a deal, sparking speculation an announcement was imminent. Then Tehran cautioned a deal was “not imminent,” and Trump said he had instructed his negotiators “not to rush into” one. The White House also branded an Iranian draft agreement, which included reopening the Strait of Hormuz and withdrawing US forces from the region, as a “complete fabrication.” So much for optimism.
Israel, which launched its own war against Iran alongside the US on 28 February, continues its operations and has ordered Lebanese residents to leave some 17% of the country’s territory. The broader regional conflict shows no signs of abating.
What strikes me most about this situation is how the rhetoric of de-escalation keeps company with the mechanics of escalation. Everyone talks about ceasefire. Everyone claims self-defense. And yet the strikes keep coming, the drones keep flying, and the Strait of Hormuz remains a flashpoint that could ignite markets worldwide. The question isn’t whether someone will escalate further. It’s whether either side has a genuine interest in stepping back before things spiral completely out of control.
