US launches more strikes on Iran as state media reports explosions
Developing story first seen 2 hours ago
US forces resumed strikes on Iran on Tuesday, with Iranian state media now reporting explosions and casualties across several southern cities as the confrontation escalates further. A regional official told state TV that a strike near Sirik killed two people and wounded several others at a wedding party, while projectiles reportedly hit Chabahar, Konarak and an airport in Jiroft, with explosions also heard on Qeshm island and in Bandar Abbas. Donald Trump described the strikes as "large and powerful", framing them as retaliation for Iran's earlier attack on a US base in Jordan and a failed attempt to mine the Strait of Hormuz, and warned a far larger assault was "waiting in the wings" should Iran hit back.
The exchange follows the collapse of a ceasefire agreed in June, which expired and triggered renewed hostilities after a fresh round of US-Israeli strikes on Iran in late February and Iranian retaliation against Israel, US bases and Gulf allies. Both sides have continued targeting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical route for global oil, with Washington also imposing new sanctions on 24 August. Amid the escalation, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Tehran would reciprocate if the US recommitted to the expired agreement.
- Iranian state media reports deaths and explosions from fresh US strikes.
- Strike near Sirik reportedly killed two people at a wedding.
- Trump warns of far larger retaliation if Iran strikes back.
New here? Start with this
Following the collapse of a ceasefire agreed in June, the United States and Iran have returned to direct military confrontation, with each side striking the other's forces and interests. The roots of the conflict go back to earlier US-Israeli strikes on Iran in late February, which prompted Iranian retaliation against Israel, US military bases and Gulf allies, setting off a cycle of attacks and counter-attacks that the June ceasefire had briefly halted.
The stand-off matters well beyond the two countries involved because both sides have been targeting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway through which a large share of the world's oil passes. Any disruption there can affect fuel prices and supply chains globally, and the involvement of US bases and regional allies means other countries in the Gulf risk being drawn into the fighting.
Key figures shaping events include US President Donald Trump, who has framed American strikes as retaliation for Iranian actions and warned of heavier action to come, and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who has said Tehran would only de-escalate if Washington recommitted to the expired ceasefire. Washington has also used economic pressure alongside military action, including fresh sanctions imposed in late August.
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 a firm military response was necessary after Iran attacked a US base in Jordan and attempted to mine the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery for global oil supplies. On this view, failing to retaliate decisively would signal weakness and invite further aggression against American forces and allies in the region. Advocates see the strikes, and the warning of a larger response if Iran retaliates again, as a deterrent strategy intended to compel Tehran back towards restraint and eventually a durable ceasefire, rather than an open-ended campaign.
The case against
Critics, including those sympathetic to Iranian civilians and regional stability, contend that continuing air strikes risks a dangerous spiral that neither side can fully control, particularly given reports of casualties at a civilian wedding party in Sirik. They argue that matching escalation with escalation, especially after a ceasefire had already collapsed once, makes renewed diplomacy harder rather than easier, and that threats of an even larger assault raise the risk of miscalculation. From this perspective, restraint, sanctions relief tied to negotiation, and a return to the expired agreement offer a more sustainable path than further strikes that endanger shipping routes and civilian lives across southern Iran.
More coverage