The timeline of this new bout of escalation is likely dictated by U.S. refinery inventories and the extent of the “hurt” being experienced by Trump back home in the context of his fading political prospects.
By Alastair Crooke
Conflicts Forum
When the U.S. Navy, in co-ordination with Qatar and Oman, tried to slip a convoy of four vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, via Omani waters, on Tuesday night — rather than pass via Iran’s officially approved route — U.S. President Donald Trump may have imagined (or been told) that, with the massive funeral for the late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei under way, Iran would not react as the U.S. Navy attempted to force open an American corridor.
Trump however, misread the Iranian jibe — Hormuz is its “atomic weapon.” Iran will not relinquish it.
Trump insists — in clear contradiction to the terms set out in paragraph five of the MoU — that Iran has no right to interfere with any ship trying to transit the Strait of Hormuz. Iran nonetheless is acting within the terms of the agreed de-escalation framework, and has warned repeatedly that it would strike any vessel circumventing the Iranian control mechanism.
Iran responded directly to Trump’s challenge to Iranian control of the Strait by striking two vessels with missiles and a third with an armed drone. A fourth Qatari-owned tanker, laden with liquefied natural gas, was set ablaze, forcing its crew to abandon the stricken vessel.
These Iranian ripostes provoked Trump to order American air strikes against Iranian targets; to reimpose sanctions on the Islamic Republic’s oil exports; and to revoke the MoU framework he had signed with what he called the “Iranian scum” — thus ending the ceasefire. “We hit them hard last night”, Trump said at the NATO summit in Ankara. “We will probably hit them hard again tonight.”
Trump did hit Iran again Wednesday night — even though Iran had not attacked another vessel seeking to by-pass the Iranian corridor. In response, Iran launched ballistic missiles and drones at U.S. bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE and Muwaffaq Al-Salti airbase in Jordan.
Vice-President Vance is saying to Iran, “If you try to close the Strait of Hormuz, the American military will respond. It’s that simple” — i.e. Iran either keeps the Strait fully open to all, or the U.S. will keep hitting it, as it did on Tuesday night.
U.S. Central Command forces have begun launching a series of powerful strikes against Iran to impose heavy costs for targeting and attacking commercial shipping crewed by innocent civilians in an international waterway. The U.S. strikes are in response to Iranian attacks on three…
— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) July 7, 2026
Iran insists that it is the U.S. that has violated the MoU and (via the spokesman for Iran’s Parliamentary National Security Committee) warns that further attacks by the U.S. on Iran will be met by a comprehensive all-out surprise offensive by Iran — and potentially by other options too, such as an Iranian withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), changing the country’s nuclear doctrine and closing the Bab al-Mandab Strait alongside the Strait of Hormuz.
So, Vice-President Vance is saying if Iran restricts Hormuz (i.e. it stays open to friendly states’ vessels) the U.S. will escalate. And Iran is responding to this threat by warning that it will escalate militarily — two strikes for every one American strike — and that they may also turn to new doctrines of warfare.
Essentially, Trump has plunged into an escalatory trap, seemingly in part out of pique at his collapsing polls at home. He did, however, directly put himself in this situation by trying to “act cute” during the Khamenei funeral “pre-occupations” in order to try to gain a “quick win.”
How long will this escalatory episode last? Certainly, it will not lead to the opening of the Strait; nor bring a return of the status quo ante that preceded the war. As long as Iran maintains its ability to exert control over Hormuz, there is no basis to assume that the situation will return to what it was.
On the contrary, and more likely, the crisis will accelerate the onset of looming global economic crisis that could last until the economic pain becomes acute, as the drawdown on sour crude continues — and as the effects on the real economy in the West become visible.
With shortages of munitions and the drawdown on air assets from the Middle East already beginning, Trump probably lacks the wherewithal to go full “Iran War 3.0.”
The timeline to this new bout of low-intensity tit-for-tat therefore, is likely dictated by refinery inventories in the U.S.; but also by the extent of the “hurt” being experienced by Trump back home in the context of his fading political prospects, but also by his dislike for any personal humiliation.
Where did this all go wrong? Possibly the crux of it derives from the moment that Iran’s new supreme leader, Sayyed Mojtaba, issued his statement that he had held a different view on the MoU to that of the negotiating team, but had agreed to proceed with it after receiving an assurance from the Iranian president that he would ensure and take into account Iran’s overarching principles in respect to relations with the U.S.
The Supreme Leader Mujtaba Khamenei’s statement put on notice both the U.S. — and the Iranian negotiators — that Iran’s approval of the MoU was no open mandate, but rather closely tied to the 10 principles originally enunciated bythe new Supreme Leader.
At some point, the Iranian leadership seemingly came to the conclusion that Iran was being played by the U.S.; that the MoU was a deception —
“and that the entirety of events since the announcement of the MoU reflected a US strategy based on the view that in the previous round of the war against Iran – [that the US and Israel] failed to achieve their objectives – necessitating a halt to the confrontation, albeit temporarily, in order to regroup and prepare ‘more thoroughly’ for a new round when the right conditions arise.”
This led to the Iranian reassessment that the Hormuz and Lebanon components constituted the vital leverage to engage in a new war as the West ramps up pressure as a holding strategy — whilst the U.S. and Israel prepare for the next round of war.
Alastair Crooke is director and founder of Conflicts Forum, based in Beirut. He was formerly advisor on Middle East issues to Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief.
This article was originally published on Conflict Forum’s Substack. It also appears on Strategic Culture Foundation.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
Please Donate to
CN’s Summer
Fund Drive!
I recall a statement from FM Arachi of Iran, that effectively said that he knew the deal, the MoU, was BS. But that they felt it was important not to pass up a chance to resolve this.
The Iranians openly stated that this original MoU was a ‘trust-building’ measure. They wanted to find out if America could be trusted to keep a deal. They now know the answer. Although, what they have received is simply confirmation of what they already knew. It is best not to pay much attention to the constant CIA message, broadcast loudly through the CIA’s media, that there are divisions in Iran. The scenes from the funeral were the pictures worth millions of words of refutation.
There is no partner for peace in America, nor in America’s 51st state. One could say that this is the position of the oligarchs, but in America’s elections, 95 to 99% of Americans regularly vote for more war and bigger war budgets. Harris was as in favor of genocide, huge war budgets, and war as Trump. There might be a difference in style, or disagreements over tactics, but Harris openly said in an interview that there was nothing, not one thing, that she would change from Biden’s years. That includes the genocide and the “praise the Lord and pass the Ammunition” policy towards Israel. The candidates who disagreed struggled to get the support of even 1% of Americans. There is no partner for peace among the war-loving Americans.
Iran, Russia, and likely China have all figured this out. It is Russia’s FM that has said “Americans are non-agreement capable.”
The number is 1.0. Or it’s a lot higher, depending on how one looks at it. The USA has effectively been at war with Iran ever since the Iranian people threw out America’s corrupt, torturing Shah. The USA has never forgiven the Iranian people for this, and has been in a constant state of hostility ever since. However, since the America constitution says that politicians have to vote and go on record to declare a war, America don’t do that anymore. Now America alternates from fake peace to sudden war on a regular basis, with constant BS about how cease-fires are still in place even as America blows the cease-fire to smithereens. With even more BS about how the nation that we bombed and hated for decades has caused us to once again be forced to bomb them.
Then US-Iran War began in 1979. The war moved into year 46 last February, as we passed the anniversary the departure of the Shah who was loved by the CIA and hated by the Iranian people. Or, if we count the various flare-ups, we can start with Number 1 when Jimmy Carter lost planes and helicopters on the ground in Iran, and then count every flare up since. Americans will need to take off their shoes to count that high.
Taking into account what Crooke has so realistically reiterated here, one would be right to surmise that Iran would not relent to losing its grip on the Hormuz in the near future and it’s determination to exercise effective control over it is assuming de facto credibility. It also appears that nothing would give either in Iran, where the revenge-bent Supreme Leader is already regretting his earlier flexibility, nor in the US itself, where a credibility-depleted Trump is simmering into bashing the Iranian civilization, even to the extent of running down their elites as scums and coo-coos. The ticking clocks on either side is heading no where. The global economy has little choice but to grind on for the coming few months and as long as it doesn’t grind to a halt, humanity could chug along till effective multi-polarity throws up positive options.
There are reports that Starmer wants to be the next Secretary of General of NATO.
As such a devoted warmonger he would certainly be well-qualified.