Trump is bombing Iran again and blundering again. He has no grasp of his enemy | Sina Toossi

US Conducts Additional Strikes on Iran After Shipping Attacks in Strait of Hormuz

US military forces reported striking 170 Iranian targets over the past 48 hours as part of renewed operations that began after a period of reduced activity following an earlier ceasefire. The actions follow statements by President Donald Trump at the NATO summit in Ankara indicating that the US-Iran memorandum of understanding reached after the 2026 conflict had effectively ended.

The 2026 war began on February 28 and involved multiple regional actors, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, before the memorandum was signed. Trump described Iranian leaders in terms that included references to them as “evil, sick people” and indicated the possibility of renewed military measures or restrictions on Iranian ports, while noting that negotiations remained an option. These comments preceded further US strikes on locations in southern Iran.

Iranian forces had conducted attacks on commercial vessels operating outside the northern shipping corridor designated by Tehran in the Strait of Hormuz. Explosions were subsequently reported at three additional sites inside Iran. On his Truth Social platform, Trump stated that the strikes constituted retribution for the vessel attacks and warned of escalated responses if similar incidents recurred.

The memorandum outlined a sequence of steps intended to reduce hostilities. These included resumption of shipping through the strait under Iranian arrangements, lifting of the US blockade, an oil export waiver for Iran, release of portions of frozen Iranian assets, cessation of threats, and an end to the conflict in Lebanon. The document was presented as a means to establish limited confidence before addressing Iran’s nuclear program.

Implementation disputes emerged shortly after signing. Iranian officials stated that the clause calling for an end to operations in Lebanon was not carried out, citing continued Israeli military presence in parts of the country. They also reported that releases of frozen assets occurred at levels below expectations. US officials cited Iranian actions in the strait, including the redirection of vessels to the northern route, as inconsistent with the agreement. On July 7, the United States revoked Iran’s oil export waiver.

Both governments have accused the other of failing to implement key provisions while retaining sources of pressure. Iranian statements have pointed to the history of sanctions that were eased and later reinstated across multiple US administrations. Much of the sanctions framework is contained in legislation, requiring periodic waivers for relief. Business assessments after the 2015 nuclear agreement indicated limited new investment and banking access despite the lifting of some restrictions at that time.

US petroleum reserves are lower than prewar levels, and global oil inventories remain constrained while shipping volumes through the strait stay below earlier figures. Iranian authorities have described control over transit routes as a form of leverage that does not require external approval for its maintenance. Proposals discussed in Iranian statements include joint administration arrangements with Oman for fee collection on designated routes.

Iran maintains several categories of capabilities referenced in official and analytical assessments: missile and drone systems, naval assets suited to the Persian Gulf, and relationships with groups including Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iraqi armed organizations. Its nuclear facilities sustained damage during the earlier phase of conflict but retain technical elements that could support future decisions. The strait remains a central point of discussion because of its role in global energy transit.

The memorandum did not resolve questions about the durability of any sanctions relief once other forms of leverage were reduced. Iranian positions have emphasized arrangements that link economic outcomes directly to continued transit operations rather than relying solely on commitments subject to future policy changes. US positions have stressed the need for verifiable restrictions on Iranian activities before permanent adjustments to sanctions or military posture.

Further exchanges in the strait or additional strikes would occur against this background of mutual assessments that prior commitments were not fully met. The sequence of events since the February 2026 start of the war has left both governments operating under reduced expectations for rapid restoration of the earlier memorandum framework.