By Lina Irawan 
In response to the escalating aggression and particularly the deadly Jordan attack, the U.S. military has dramatically intensified its operations. It has notably reinstated a naval blockade of Iran, a measure with severe economic implications, and has been bombing Iranian targets for several consecutive days. These attacks initially concentrated on coastal areas near the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, aiming to dismantle Iran’s ability to interfere with international shipping. However, recent airstrikes have broadened in scope, extending to critical inland infrastructure, such as railways and logistical hubs, which intelligence suggests could be used by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to ferry weapons, drones, and missile components to proxy groups or reinforce their own positions. The strategic shift to targeting deeper infrastructure signals a more comprehensive effort to cripple Iran’s military and logistical capabilities, moving beyond immediate maritime threats.
On Saturday, following the casualties in Jordan, the U.S. military announced a new and more extensive wave of airstrikes, signaling a direct and forceful response to the loss of American lives. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) articulated the dual objectives of these operations, stating, “The strikes are designed to further degrade Iran’s ability to threaten commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and swiftly punish Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps forces who launched attacks against American service members in Jordan last night.” This declaration underscored Washington’s intent to exact a clear cost for the attack while simultaneously reinforcing its long-standing commitment to ensuring the freedom of navigation through the critical chokepoint. The targets for these strikes reportedly included IRGC Quds Force facilities, drone storage sites, missile launchers, and command and control centers across various regions in Iran, indicating a carefully coordinated and multi-pronged punitive campaign.
Concurrently, Iran has escalated its own asymmetric warfare campaign, launching a series of retaliatory attacks. These have targeted commercial ships traversing the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea, raising maritime insurance premiums and sowing chaos in global shipping lanes. Tehran has also directed strikes at its neighbors across the Persian Gulf region, particularly those perceived as U.S. allies, using ballistic missiles and drones to target critical U.S. military assets stationed in countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Disturbingly, Iran’s attacks have also extended to civilian infrastructure, including vital energy facilities and even water desalination plants, signaling a willingness to inflict economic and humanitarian pain on its adversaries and the broader region. This strategy aims to demonstrate Iran’s reach and resolve, deterring further U.S. action while showcasing its ability to destabilize the region despite conventional military inferiority.
While the current intensity of fighting is undeniably high, it has yet to reach the widespread, all-encompassing scale witnessed during the initial phases of the war, which saw larger-scale conventional engagements and more direct confrontations between U.S. and Iranian forces. However, the deaths of U.S. service members have consistently represented a critical "red line" for President Donald Trump, who has previously vowed to respond with overwhelming force to such provocations. Early last month, before both sides signed a fragile memorandum of understanding that has since irrevocably collapsed, Trump confided to his aides that he would seriously consider ending any existing ceasefire and resuming full-scale hostilities if Iran were to kill American troops, according to an exclusive report by The Wall Street Journal. This previous stance highlights the gravity of the current situation and the immense pressure on the Trump administration to deliver a response commensurate with the perceived violation of this critical boundary.
When pressed for comment on the unfolding crisis and whether the U.S. would indeed return to an "all-out war," the White House offered only a terse statement from Central Command, announcing the casualties. This measured, almost minimalist response, stood in stark contrast to the severity of the situation and left observers speculating about the administration’s immediate strategy. Some analysts interpreted it as a deliberate attempt to maintain strategic ambiguity, keeping Tehran guessing about the precise nature and scale of the impending U.S. retaliation. Others viewed it as an indicator of the profound internal deliberations and the immense pressure the White House was under to craft a response that was both decisive and avoided a precipitous descent into a larger, uncontrollable regional conflict. The political stakes for President Trump, especially in an election year, are exceptionally high, as he navigates between fulfilling his "red line" promise and avoiding the "endless wars" he campaigned against.
The intensification of fighting in recent days has sent immediate ripples through global markets, with oil prices jumping significantly. The prospect of an expanded war, particularly one involving sustained disruption in the Middle East, threatens to deliver another severe shock to an already fragile global economy. Consuming countries worldwide have drawn down their strategic oil stockpiles to their lowest levels in decades, leaving little breathing room to endure another extended closure or severe impediment to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. This critical chokepoint, through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s total oil supply passes daily, is now at the heart of the conflict.
The U.S. had previously established an alternate maritime route through the narrow waters surrounding the Strait, designed to bypass the Iranian-controlled corridor and ensure some level of unimpeded commercial shipping. However, the renewed fighting and Iran’s aggressive actions have effectively shut down this alternative as well. On Friday, tracking data from MarineTraffic revealed no crossings via the U.S.-backed route, and surprisingly, no shadow fleet movements were recorded either, indicating a widespread paralysis in shipping activity due to the heightened risk. In stark contrast, Iran’s own designated route within the Strait saw seven transits, suggesting that some vessels, likely those with direct ties to Iran or willing to pay protection fees, were still navigating the perilous waters, albeit under significant duress. The complete cessation of traffic on the U.S.-backed route underscores the effectiveness of Iran’s strategy to disrupt shipping, regardless of the route taken, and highlights the immense challenge of maintaining global energy flows under such conditions.
Despite a massive U.S.-Israeli bombardment campaign in earlier phases of the conflict, the war has demonstrably failed to bring about an overthrow of Iran’s regime, nor has it fully reopened the Strait of Hormuz to unfettered international commerce. To be sure, Iran’s economy is reeling under the weight of sanctions and blockades, and its conventional military forces have suffered significant decimation. However, the Islamic Republic retains enough asymmetric combat power—including mines, fast attack craft, anti-ship missiles, and drone capabilities—to effectively scare away commercial shipping and isn’t deterred from continuing its attacks. This resilience, fueled by a deeply entrenched revolutionary ideology and a sophisticated network of proxy forces, complicates any military solution aimed at decisively defeating Tehran or restoring full stability to the region.
Meanwhile, hopes for a new round of talks aimed at cobbling together another ceasefire are rapidly vanishing. Previously, some officials on both sides appeared to leave the door open to negotiations, despite Tehran’s defiant statements in the face of U.S. strikes. This cautious optimism was partly fueled by private admissions from pragmatists inside Iran that the initial naval blockade had indeed crushed the national economy, severely impacting its ability to export oil and import essential goods. The resumption of the blockade reportedly deepened a significant rift between these pragmatists, who advocate for de-escalation and engagement, and hard-liners within the regime, who favor a more aggressive and confrontational stance. However, the recent attack in Jordan and the subsequent U.S. retaliation have seemingly empowered the hard-liners. On Saturday, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a chilling warning of “unforgettable lessons” if the U.S. continued its attacks, emphatically calling President Trump’s signature “worthless and invalid.” This unequivocal rejection of American authority and any prior agreements signals a hardened stance from Tehran, making any immediate diplomatic breakthrough exceedingly unlikely.
For its part, the U.S. continues to blame Iran for violating the collapsed ceasefire agreement, citing Tehran’s refusal to fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz and its persistent attacks on ships sailing outside of Iran’s unilaterally approved corridor. This tit-for-tat blame game and the relentless cycle of attacks have raised profound fears of an endless war, precisely the kind of protracted conflict that President Trump campaigned on avoiding.
Ali Vaez, the Iran Project Director at the International Crisis Group, articulated this growing concern in a compelling New York Times op-ed on Wednesday. He wrote, “The immediate dispute concerns who controls the Strait of Hormuz, but more is at stake. The collapse of even this minimal understanding could remove the last barrier between episodic confrontation and a forever war.” Vaez’s analysis highlights the critical nature of the current moment, suggesting that the limited, fragile understandings that previously constrained the conflict have now evaporated, leaving a dangerous void.
Gregory Brew, a senior analyst for Iran and energy with the Eurasia Group, echoed these sentiments in an interview with Fortune’s Jordan Blum, arguing that “there’s no military option” for definitively reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Brew underscored that Iran would not relinquish its main source of leverage—its geographical control over the vital waterway—without significant concessions. He further warned that some form of Iranian fee or toll to cross the Strait seems increasingly inevitable, a de facto recognition of Iran’s control that the international community would find hard to swallow. Moreover, Brew posited that continued U.S. attacks, rather than deterring Iran, paradoxically only serve to strengthen Tehran’s resolve and consolidate hard-line power.
Brew’s stark prediction for the immediate future of the conflict offers a sobering outlook: “The options are to escalate or cut a deal. And I think the [Trump] administration is likely to do the first, see it fail, and end up with the second.” This analysis suggests a grim trajectory where the U.S. might initially pursue a more aggressive military path, only to find it unsustainable or ineffective, ultimately necessitating a return to the negotiating table, albeit from a potentially weaker position. The current landscape, marked by casualties, economic disruption, and increasingly bellicose rhetoric, makes any path forward fraught with immense challenges and the constant specter of a regional conflagration with global ramifications.
