Less than a month after hailing a ceasefire, Donald Trump has ordered a resumption of strikes on Iranian military and infrastructure targets, a move that experts warn could prolong the conflict and undermine Republicans' prospects in the November midterm elections.
The strikes follow the breakdown of a memorandum of understanding signed at the Palace of Versailles on 17 June, which was intended to pave the way for a 60-day ceasefire and negotiations on Iran's nuclear programme. Iran has retaliated with drone and missile attacks on US allies in the Gulf, while the agreement had already drawn sharp criticism from neoconservatives who branded it a capitulation.
Curt Mills, executive editor of the American Conservative, said there was "no timeline in which this makes any sense for preserving midterm performance", describing the escalation as "a total loser" and evidence that Trump does not really care about the elections. Former State Department and White House adviser Nate Swanson said the escalation had already exceeded expectations and risked a failure of leverage, with potentially devastating consequences including a land invasion that could lead to the "forever wars" Trump previously condemned.
At the heart of the renewed violence is the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world's energy exports passed before the war began on 28 February. The strait has become Tehran's key bargaining chip as it seeks to resist pressure over its nuclear programme and support for proxies such as Hezbollah. Under the memorandum, Iran would have reopened the strait in exchange for significant sanctions relief, including the right to sell oil internationally and the unfreezing of billions of dollars in assets.
The immediate trigger for the latest escalation was Iran's firing on commercial vessels from neighbouring Gulf kingdoms that used a shipping lane close to Oman, rather than routes off the Iranian coast where Tehran could charge fees described as illegal tolls. While some analysts blamed the MoU's collapse on poor US negotiating, Vali Nasr of Johns Hopkins argued that "there was no misunderstanding", and that the outcome was "exactly what Trump intended".
