For the second day in a row, the United States launched another attack on Iran, again motivated by attacks on commercial ships.
Saturday’s new attacks are the latest sign that the Middle East ceasefire established as part of a June 17 memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran may be reaching a breaking point.
Recommended stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which directs military operations in the Middle East, said in a statement that the attack was carried out “at the direction of the commander in chief.”
“CENTCOM forces launched the attack today in direct response to Iran’s continued attacks on commercial shipping,” the command wrote.
“U.S. aircraft targeted Iran’s military surveillance infrastructure, communications systems, air defense facilities, drone storage facilities, and mine-laying capabilities.”
Explosions were reported around the village of Tarui, near the port of Sirik in southern Iran, which was also the center of Friday’s U.S. attack. State media also reported that Qeshm Island was affected.
Less than two hours after the attack began, US President Donald Trump warned in a social media post that Saturday’s attack could be a precursor to more intense fighting if Iran does not meet US expectations.
He accused Iran of repeatedly violating the ceasefire memorandum, an accusation shared by both sides.
“It’s very likely they will never learn,” President Trump wrote.
“The day may come when we will no longer be able to maintain reason and we will be forced to carry out militarily the work we have successfully begun. Then the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist!”
Response to cargo ship strike
Saturday’s attack on Iran followed a similar strategy to Friday’s.
Early Saturday morning, at approximately 4:30 a.m. ET (08:00 GMT), the Panamanian-flagged tanker Kiku was reportedly struck by an unidentified projectile as it sailed through the Strait of Hormuz.
There were no injuries to the crew, and no leakage from the cargo was reported.
Centcom said the ship was carrying more than 2 million barrels of crude oil when it was attacked by a “one-way attack drone.”
The tanker left Al Shaheen oil field on Thursday and is scheduled to enter Fujairah, United Arab Emirates, on Sunday, according to the website MarineTraffic.com.
A similar series of events led to Friday’s simultaneous attack by the United States.
In that case, the Singapore-flagged container ship Everlovely was hit by a drone while sailing through the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday. There were no injuries to the crew, and the ship continued sailing.
But President Trump denounced Friday’s drone strike as a “stupid violation” of the June 17 memorandum.
By that night, the U.S. and Iran had exchanged artillery fire, with the U.S. targeting the area around Sirik and Iran attacking U.S. military facilities in the Middle East.
CENTCOM referenced Friday’s action in announcing the latest strike.
“After yesterday’s U.S. attack in response to Iran’s attack on the M/V Ever Lovely, Iran was given an opportunity to abide by the ceasefire agreement,” CENTCOM wrote.
Iran “chose not to do so,” he added, citing the Kiku drone attack. Centcom also insisted that commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a sticking point in ceasefire negotiations, would continue with support from the US military.
“U.S. forces remain alert, lethal, and ready,” Centcom said in a statement.
control the straits
The latest battle centers on control of the Strait of Hormuz, a key artery for maritime traffic. Almost 20% of the world’s oil supplies pass through this narrow waterway during peacetime, as well as significant amounts of fertilizer and natural gas.
However, after the US and Israel launched attacks on Iran on February 28, starting the current war, Tehran took steps to cut off traffic in the strait between its coast and the coast of Oman.
Iran’s decision sent global fuel prices soaring and created domestic and international pressure on the Trump administration.
The June 17 memorandum was intended to provide relief. Although this was a prelude to further negotiations, the agreement required the United States, Iran, and their allies to “declare an immediate and permanent cessation of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.”
It also outlined a 60-day period during which Iran will make “best efforts” to allow commercial traffic to pass through the Strait of Hormuz free of charge.
That part of the agreement specified that Iran and Oman would determine the “future administrative and maritime services” in the waterway.
However, with continued fighting in Lebanon, Iran is once again under threat of closing the strait.
Next, there is the issue of the terms of the memorandum. Experts say the United States and Iran have reached different understandings of how the June deal should be implemented.
Al Jazeera correspondent Resul Serdar Atas explained that Iran believes restrictions on commercial traffic without permission to cross the strait should be allowed.
“Iranian officials say Article 5 of the memorandum clearly states that ships must fully cooperate with the Iranian authorities, whether they are sailing in Iranian waters or passing through Omani territorial waters.”
“But that’s not how the Americans understand it. They’re saying, ‘If we’re going to transit Oman’s territorial waters, we don’t need to coordinate with the Iranian authorities.'”
As a result, there is disagreement over who is violating ceasefire terms. The United States believes Iran is violating the agreement by interfering with commercial shipping, but Tehran recognizes that the United States is breaking its promise to cease fighting.
“That’s the pattern,” Serdar Atas said. “For the Americans, keeping the Strait of Hormuz open is critical to global economic stability. But for Iran, having the Strait of Hormuz under Iranian control is the ultimate deterrent and the greatest lever.”
Retaliation ‘could get out of hand’
According to Hassan Ahmadian, a professor at Tehran University, part of the hostility is the result of high levels of mistrust between Tehran and Washington.
He noted that Iran’s insistence that ships pass through the Strait of Hormuz be cleared could be interpreted as a defensive move.
“I don’t think Iran will let this go, because according to the memorandum, it clearly wants only commercial ships to pass through the strait. So any ship that doesn’t coordinate could be a military ship and could be carrying military supplies,” Ahmadian said.
He believes Iran may end talks with the Trump administration aimed at reaching a peace deal after the recent spate of attacks by the United States.
Meanwhile, the U.S. side is likely to face pressure from rising oil prices as hostilities resume, said Harlan Ullman, a retired U.S. naval officer and chairman of global advisory firm Killowen Group.
Still, Ullman warned that the shootout could lead to escalation in violence, rendering the memorandum moot.
“The agreement is very fragile and this retaliation could get out of hand,” Ullman said.
“If prices go up, which I think they will, it will be a moderating effect. The US will think higher oil prices are bad and will probably continue to negotiate. But at this point, no one knows.”
Congressional Democrats have already warned that they could take action if the U.S. attacks continue.
Just last Tuesday, both houses of Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which requires President Trump to seek Congressional approval before taking further military action against Iran.
One of the resolution’s sponsors, California Representative Ro Khanna, reacted to the walkout by threatening further action by Congress to restrain the president.
“These attacks are a clear violation of the War Powers Resolution we passed,” Khanna wrote on social media. “Mr. Trump must end this war now or we will take him to court and force him to do so.”
