After a month of pre-emptive strikes in the US-Iranian war, US President Donald Trump appeared to hint at a new phase in the war, which last Friday entered its first six months.
“We’re going to hit them hard… There will be a counterattack,” President Trump told reporters on Monday, shortly after Iran launched a missile attack on U.S. military facilities in Jordan in response to Iran’s attack on Larak Island the night before.
Recommended stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
US news outlet Axios has reported that the US government may switch to a new “no war, no peace” strategy in the conflict, which aims to attack Iran regularly without engaging it in a sustained conflict.
So what exactly is President Trump’s current strategy, and can the U.S. military maintain it as the war enters its seventh month?
What happened on Monday?
The United States attacked military targets on Rarak Island in the Strait of Hormuz, near Iran’s strategic port of Bandar Abbas. The US government said Iranian forces had attacked two Iranian rocket launchers that the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) were preparing to use to spray mines into the strait.
Iranian media reported that three people were killed. Iran subsequently fired missiles at two air bases in Jordan that house U.S. personnel and assets. Jordan announced that it had intercepted eight missiles. In response, President Trump promised, “We’re going to attack them hard.”
At the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said his military would cease fire if the United States takes similar action and fulfills its commitments under the interim agreement signed in June to end the war, lift sanctions and open the Strait of Hormuz. However, the agreement has since expired and largely collapsed due to disagreements arising from its ambiguous wording.
Monday’s gunfight was the first direct attack between the two countries in more than a month, raising fears the conflict could return to a more intense military phase.
But Trump told the media that a resumption of fighting does not necessarily mean a return to full-scale war, saying the Strait of Hormuz is in “very good shape” but insisting that Iran’s financial system, military and leadership have been significantly weakened.
“That doesn’t mean we won’t hit them. Let’s see what happens,” he told reporters at the White House.
How did U.S. war strategy change during the conflict?
The Trump administration’s approach to the war against Iran is constantly changing. It began with a full-scale military operation that lasted for 40 days, followed by a ceasefire that was later extended.
In June, Iran and the United States signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU), agreeing to ceasefire terms and allowing 60 days of broader peace negotiations.
The memorandum’s carefully worded language, particularly related to who had overall control of the Strait of Hormuz, led to its collapse within weeks, with the United States and Iran accusing each other of violating its terms. This led to a renewed U.S. offensive against Iran in July, with Tehran once again retaliating against U.S. military assets and other infrastructure in the neighboring Gulf state.
More recently, the Trump administration has shifted from sustained military action to economic pressure. The change comes amid US media reports that the US military is in short supply of munitions in the Middle East, particularly the critical Patriot interceptor missile used to defend against Iranian drone and missile attacks. But the Trump administration denies there is a weapons shortage.
Last week, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced an economic pressure campaign against Iran, vowing to target Iran’s financial interests around the world.
He said the US would target Iran’s sources of revenue, including oil. Sanctions were imposed on 60 “entities” for promoting the sale of Iranian oil. It threatened other countries and companies doing business with Tehran with possible secondary sanctions.
On Monday, Bessent said the Iranian airstrikes were evidence that the Iranian government is “attacking hard because it is suffering economic losses” and argued that new sanctions are starting to hurt Iran.
In response, Iran’s central bank governor Abdulnasser Hemmati said claims that the economy was collapsing were “not correct.”
“I say to the president of the United States that we have enough foreign exchange,” he told a news conference.
Is the United States heading toward a “no war, no peace” strategy?
Observers say the current situation is moving closer and closer to a precarious middle ground, with solutions rapidly disappearing.
Neither side appears to be calling for an immediate return to full-scale war, but they have indicated they are prepared to respond militarily if they believe their interests are threatened.
On Monday, Axios reported that the Trump administration is considering a strategy of periodically attacking Iran to keep oil tankers moving safely out of the Gulf region. A plan to resume sporadic military strikes against Iran has not yet been approved by President Trump.
Iran effectively closed the crucial Strait of Hormuz in early March after the war began, but has since closed it off to full navigation, sometimes allowing only a few ships it deems “friendly” to pass through. Both countries now claim control of the waterway, with Iran intermittently firing rockets at ships attempting to sail without authorization, and President Trump claiming the U.S. Navy has been successful in escorting ships.
Since the Memorandum of Understanding collapsed in July when the US resumed its attacks on Iran, Iran has refused to engage in diplomatic negotiations with the US and has only held talks with Oman over the future governance of Hormuz.
Trita Parsi, director and co-founder of the US-based Quincy Institute, said: “Bombing a country on a regular basis is like fighting a forever war, and there is no way around it.”
“The (Trump) administration appears to have given up on solving the problem militarily, economically and diplomatically and is instead resorting to permanent war,” he told Al Jazeera.
“This is a complete defeat for the United States, which started out thinking the war would last less than four days.”
Is Trump’s new strategy of sporadic wars sustainable?
Analysts say there are many reasons why the United States may not be able to maintain pressure on Iran indefinitely.
Mohammad Eslami, a researcher at the University of Tehran, said the Trump administration is ultimately seeking to pursue a “calculated” conflict with Iran over control of the strait, which was fully and freely open to all shipping before the war began.
Regarding the outcome of the war against Iran, Eslami told Al Jazeera: “You have to think that this war was based on a miscalculation in Washington, D.C., and so far they seem very confident in their decision.”
But he said sporadic strikes, such as those held this week, risked further escalating tensions in the region.
Negar Mortazavi, a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for International Policy, said that after the memorandum collapsed, new escalation became inevitable.
“Iran has made its position clear. If Washington returns to the memorandum, Iran will return as well. If the US continues to prioritize military pressure, Iran will escalate,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera. “A mutual return to the Memorandum of Understanding remains the clearest path to de-escalation.”
Otherwise, she warned, both sides risk losing control of the situation.
Iran says it has reached a framework for an agreement with Oman on the future management of the Strait of Hormuz, but “the United States does not believe any diplomatic solution is necessary for now,” Eslami added.
He said they would “instead wait until after the (U.S.) midterm elections in November” and continue to apply economic pressure on Iran.
However, traffic in the strait remains at an all-time low, dropping from about 100 ships a day during the war to an average of seven ships a day. Furthermore, Mortazavi said, “Iran will not capitulate under (economic) pressure. While both sides may believe they can control escalation, each new interaction increases the risk of a broader regional conflict.”
It is also unclear how long the United States will be able to continue attacking Iran, even if infrequently, because of speculation that it is running out of ammunition.
Additionally, there are political costs for President Trump of continuing the war. Domestic pressure has increased on him due to soaring gasoline prices and the prolongation of the war, and his domestic approval rating has fallen to 33%.
Where does Israel stand in all this?
The war against Iran began as a joint military operation between the United States and Israel, but the two countries now appear to have different priorities.
Last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated his determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, despite the lack of evidence that the country is currently pursuing nuclear weapons.
Since the first ceasefire took effect in April, Israel has officially attacked Iran only once, but has been obstructive regarding the June memorandum, refusing to withdraw from southern Lebanon despite an agreement that provides for a ceasefire on all fronts.
But the U.S. priority ahead of November’s midterm elections is to find a way out of the war, including reopening the Strait of Hormuz and reducing the economic and political costs of the conflict.
Parsi of the Quincy Institute said the interests of the two allies are no longer aligned. “The United States has no interest in forever war with Iran.”
