Trump orders Iranian strikes as conflict flares in Strait of Hormuz
Developed over time first seen 2 months ago
The US and Iran's conflict, which had appeared to be entering a lull, escalated sharply again after Donald Trump ordered a fresh wave of ballistic missile strikes on Iranian radar systems and military assets, and Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps responded with strikes on commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz and a claimed missile strike on a US base in Jordan. Trump used the episode to insist he was not trying to push Tehran back to the negotiating table, saying he "couldn't care less" whether Iran signed a deal, while calling on the Iranian people to "rise up" against their government, a call that echoed earlier this year when thousands of protesters were reportedly killed by Iranian security forces.
Around a dozen strikes hit targets along a 300-mile stretch of the Iranian coast near the Strait of Hormuz, including the oil-rich Qeshm Island and the port cities of Bandar Abbas and Chabahar, while Iran claimed to have hit a US Marine base in Jordan, a claim the Pentagon did not confirm. The renewed fighting came despite a 14-point, Pakistan-mediated ceasefire agreed in June that gave both sides 60 days to negotiate, an agreement that collapsed within weeks. US embassies in Qatar, Israel and Jordan warned of possible flight cancellations and airspace closures, and Brent crude rose 4% to $94 a barrel as markets reacted to the deepening standoff, with Trump warning of a further, larger response should Iran retaliate again.
- US-Iran ceasefire collapsed; strikes and retaliation resumed after weeks of relative calm
- Trump denies seeking talks, urges Iranians to "rise up" against their government
- Oil prices jumped 4% as embassies warned of regional flight disruption
New here? Start with this
The conflict between the United States and Iran has re-escalated after months of relative calm, following a ceasefire brokered by Pakistan in June that was meant to give both sides 60 days to negotiate. That truce broke down within weeks, and each country has accused the other of fresh attacks, including strikes on military sites and, according to Iran, a missile strike on a US base in Jordan, which the Pentagon has not confirmed.
President Donald Trump has taken a hard public line throughout, previously claiming Iran's military capability had already been destroyed and now warning of severe consequences for any further retaliation. He denies trying to push Iran back to the negotiating table and has instead called on ordinary Iranians to challenge their own government, a stance that marks a shift from earlier diplomatic efforts between the two countries.
The dispute matters well beyond the two nations directly involved. Iran's alleged attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway through which much of the world's oil passes, have already pushed up oil prices, while security warnings for flights in Qatar, Israel and Jordan point to the risk of wider disruption across a region central to global energy supplies and air travel.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the strikes argue that Iran's own violations of the ceasefire, including attacks on commercial shipping and a claimed strike on a US base, demonstrate that Tehran only responds to firm deterrence rather than diplomatic patience. They contend that allowing Iranian aggression near a critical global shipping chokepoint to go unanswered would embolden further attacks on allies and international commerce, and that refusing to be drawn into negotiations under duress denies Iran any reward for escalation. On this view, backing the Iranian public's right to challenge a government that has used lethal force against its own protesters reflects a principled stand for human rights and self-determination, not mere provocation.
The case against
Critics of the strikes argue that launching further ballistic missile attacks risks a full-scale regional war, endangering shipping lanes, allied troops and civilians while driving up energy costs that hit ordinary people worldwide, as reflected in the sharp rise in oil prices. They contend that abandoning the painstakingly negotiated ceasefire in favour of military action undermines diplomacy's chance to work and that explicitly rejecting a return to talks removes any off-ramp from the crisis. They also caution that urging Iranians to rise up, while offering no protection to those who might heed the call and given the regime's documented lethal crackdowns on protesters, is a reckless use of rhetoric that endangers civilians without a credible plan to support them.
More coverage
Business Economy Middle East World
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Trump ‘couldn’t care less’ if Iran returns to peace negotiations as he seeks to decimate economy and issues challenge to nation’s people”.