Violence will be met with violence, but the phone remains open.
Less than two weeks after signing their first memorandum of understanding since 1979, the United States and Iran exchanged drone and missile strikes across the Persian Gulf, shattering a ceasefire that had barely drawn breath. Bahrain found itself caught in the crossfire, and a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz was targeted in what both sides framed as retaliation — a word that, in this corridor of history, has rarely led anywhere but deeper into the same corridor. The fragility of the agreement revealed not merely a diplomatic failure but the enduring weight of a waterway that both sides understand to be the fulcrum of the entire negotiation.
- A ceasefire signed just seven days ago collapsed almost instantly as Iran launched drones at Bahrain and a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, with the US citing its own overnight strikes on Iranian military sites as justification.
- The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed it had hit 'several sites of the US terrorist army in the region,' while Washington said it had struck Iranian missile facilities and coastal radar installations — each side insisting it fired second.
- Control of the Strait of Hormuz has emerged as the central obstacle to any lasting peace, with Iran threatening to impose tolls and demand compliance from passing vessels, and the US Navy now expanding alternative shipping routes near Oman to erode Tehran's leverage.
- The International Maritime Organisation suspended evacuations of stranded ships until guarantees against further attacks are secured, leaving dozens of vessels trapped — some for months — as energy prices remain elevated and American midterm elections loom.
- Vice-President JD Vance warned Iran to 'pick up the phone' rather than escalate, but the diplomatic window is visibly narrowing, with Lebanon's Hezbollah simultaneously rejecting a US-brokered Israeli withdrawal framework and calling it a 'surrender to Israel.'
On Saturday morning, Iran launched drones at Bahrain and a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, describing the strikes as retaliation for overnight American attacks on Iranian military sites. Bahrain reported no damage or casualties, but the symbolic damage was severe: the exchange marked the first violence since the two countries signed a memorandum of understanding just seven days earlier — the first such agreement since Iran's 1979 revolution — meant to open a 60-day window for peace negotiations.
The speed of the collapse exposed how much remained unresolved. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed it had struck US military positions across the region; Washington said it had responded to an earlier Iranian drone attack on a ship by hitting Iranian missile facilities and radar installations. Each side cast itself as the aggrieved party, and the cycle of retaliation resumed almost before the ink on the ceasefire had dried.
At the heart of the dispute sits the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran had effectively closed during the recent conflict. Tehran has sought to leverage its control over the waterway — threatening tolls and demanding vessel compliance — while the US, with midterm elections approaching and energy prices still elevated, is pressing to restore normal shipping. On Saturday, a US Navy-supervised maritime body announced it would expand shipping routes near Oman, a direct challenge to Iranian authority. The International Maritime Organisation, which had evacuated roughly 115 stranded vessels in recent days, suspended further operations until guarantees against attack could be secured.
Vice-President JD Vance, a central figure in the negotiations, warned Friday night that Iran should 'pick up the phone' rather than escalate, and that 'violence will be met with violence.' The message acknowledged that diplomacy was still possible — but made clear it was not indefinitely patient.
The crisis radiated outward. In Lebanon, Hezbollah rejected a 14-point framework reached in Washington between Israel and the Lebanese government, under which Israeli forces would withdraw from over 600 square kilometres of occupied southern territory in phases, replaced by the Lebanese army. Hezbollah's leader Naim Qassem called the agreement a 'surrender to Israel' and declared it void, objecting in particular to a clause making Hezbollah's disarmament a precondition for Israeli withdrawal. Iran had consistently linked the fate of Lebanon to its own negotiations with Washington — a linkage both the US and Israel had refused to accept. As the weekend unfolded, the question was whether the tit-for-tat strikes would pull the broader peace process under, or whether both sides retained enough interest in survival to step back.
On Saturday morning, Iran launched drones at Bahrain in what officials there described as retaliation for American military strikes carried out overnight. The attack came swiftly—so swiftly that it shattered a ceasefire agreement signed just days before. Bahrain's foreign ministry confirmed that multiple drones had been fired at the country, though initial assessments found no damage or casualties. A tanker in the Strait of Hormuz was also targeted in what appeared to be a coordinated strike, again with no reported harm.
The Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had announced earlier that morning that it had struck "several sites of the US terrorist army in the region," without naming specific targets. The US military, for its part, said it had responded to an earlier Iranian drone attack on a ship by striking Iranian missile and drone facilities, as well as coastal radar installations. What unfolded was a rapid exchange of fire—the first violent incident since the two countries had signed a memorandum of understanding just seven days prior. That agreement, the first of its kind since Iran's 1979 revolution, was meant to extend a fragile ceasefire and open a 60-day window for negotiations toward a lasting peace.
The speed with which the agreement fractured revealed how fragile the arrangement truly was. Significant gaps remained between the two sides, and one obstacle loomed larger than the others: control of the Strait of Hormuz. The waterway had been effectively closed by Iran during the recent war, and its future status was still being negotiated among Iran, Oman, and other regional mediators attempting to establish a postwar framework. The strait mattered enormously—energy prices remained elevated, and the American president, Donald Trump, was eager to restore normal shipping operations with midterm elections approaching in a few months.
For Iran, the strait represented leverage. The country had threatened to impose tolls on vessels passing through and had demanded that ships comply with its orders. But on Saturday, a multinational maritime body supervised by the US Navy announced it would expand shipping routes near Oman to increase traffic flow—a direct challenge to Tehran's control. The International Maritime Organisation, meanwhile, had suspended evacuation efforts for stranded ships on Friday, saying it would not resume operations until guarantees were in place against further attacks. The organisation had managed to evacuate roughly 115 vessels in recent days, but others remained trapped, some for months.
The US vice-president, JD Vance, who had been central to the negotiations, issued a warning on Friday night. Iran should "pick up the phone" if disagreements arose, he said, adding that "violence will be met with violence." The message was clear: the window for diplomacy remained open, but it was narrowing.
The crisis extended beyond the strait. In Lebanon, Hezbollah rejected a framework agreement that Israel and the Lebanese government had reached in Washington on Friday. The 14-point document outlined a phased Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon, with Lebanese army forces replacing Israeli troops and tasked with preventing Hezbollah from returning to the area. Hezbollah's leader, Naim Qassem, called the agreement a "surrender to Israel" and declared it "null and void." He accused the Lebanese government of making unnecessary concessions that undermined national sovereignty. The framework made Hezbollah's disarmament a prerequisite for Israeli withdrawal—a condition Qassem said would legitimise Israel's occupation of the territory.
Israel currently occupied more than 600 square kilometres of south Lebanon and had demolished dozens of villages in those areas, displacing more than a million residents. A ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel, brokered by the US the previous week, had largely held, though exceptions occurred. On Saturday, Israeli forces carried out a drone strike in the Nabatieh area, killing one person according to Lebanon's health ministry. Israel claimed it had targeted someone who "posed a threat to its forces" but offered no evidence.
Iran had repeatedly tied the success of the Lebanon ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal to the outcome of its own peace talks with the US—a linkage that both Washington and Israel had resisted. As the weekend progressed, the question was whether the tit-for-tat strikes in the strait would derail the broader negotiations or whether both sides would step back from the brink.
Citas Notables
Hezbollah's leader Naim Qassem described the 14-point agreement as a surrender to Israel and said it was null and void.— Naim Qassem, Hezbollah leader
Iran should pick up the phone in the event of disagreements, with the warning that violence will be met with violence.— JD Vance, US Vice-President
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did Iran strike back so quickly? The ceasefire was only a week old.
Because the US had just hit Iranian military sites overnight. Iran felt it had to respond immediately or lose credibility with its own forces and allies. Waiting would have looked like weakness.
But didn't that response break the agreement they'd just signed?
Technically, yes. But both sides are interpreting the agreement differently. The US sees it as a pause. Iran sees it as a framework that allows for defensive actions. The real test is whether they can talk through these incidents without them spiralling.
What's the actual leverage here? Why does the Strait of Hormuz matter so much?
It's the world's most important oil chokepoint. Iran can choke off global energy supplies by controlling it. The US wants it open for commerce and military movement. Right now Iran is using that control as a bargaining chip in the negotiations.
So the US is trying to bypass that leverage by opening new routes?
Exactly. If ships can move through without Iran's permission, Iran loses its main card at the negotiating table. That's why the announcement about expanding routes near Oman was so significant—it's not just logistics, it's strategy.
What about the Hezbollah situation in Lebanon? How does that connect?
Iran has explicitly linked it. They're saying: if Israel doesn't withdraw from Lebanon and Hezbollah isn't allowed to remain, then the ceasefire with us falls apart too. It's leverage stacked on leverage.
Is there any chance this actually holds?
The 60-day window is real. Both sides have reasons to negotiate—the US wants stability before elections, Iran wants sanctions relief. But every drone strike, every Israeli operation in Lebanon, every new shipping route announced makes it harder to trust the other side.