America wins either way—whether the deal happens or Iran's weakened
Along the contested waters of the Strait of Hormuz, the ancient logic of reprisal has reasserted itself — each strike answered by another, each ultimatum hardening the next. The United States and Iran exchanged military blows across the Gulf this weekend, with American forces targeting Iranian military infrastructure and Iran responding with drones and missiles aimed at US bases in Kuwait and Bahrain. What began as a dispute over commercial shipping has grown into something that tests the outer limits of deterrence, as both governments speak the language of sovereignty and self-defense while the architecture of negotiation quietly fractures beneath them.
- Iran launched drones and missiles at US military bases in Kuwait and Bahrain on Sunday, directly retaliating for American airstrikes the day before — a tit-for-tat cycle now moving faster than diplomacy can follow.
- A residential building near Bahrain's international airport had its top floor destroyed in the strikes, a reminder that the consequences of this exchange are not confined to military installations.
- Trump threatened on Truth Social that the Islamic Republic of Iran 'will no longer exist' if the US is forced to finish what it started, while Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps vowed a stronger response to any further American violations.
- Tehran threatened to walk away from negotiations entirely if US attacks continue, even as Iran's foreign minister was in Baghdad discussing the future of the Strait of Hormuz — the world's most critical oil chokepoint.
- Regional and European governments condemned the Iranian strikes, but the deeper alarm is structural: both sides are accusing the other of breaking the ceasefire first, leaving no shared ground from which to de-escalate.
The cycle turned again on Sunday. Iran launched drones and missiles at American military installations in Kuwait and Bahrain, striking back after US forces had hit Iranian targets the previous day — itself a response to what Washington described as an Iranian drone attack on a cargo ship in the Strait of Hormuz. Air defense systems activated across the Gulf within the hour. Kuwait intercepted the incoming projectiles and reported no damage. Bahrain was less fortunate: a residential building near its international airport lost its top floor, windows blown out, rubble cascading from what had been eight stories. No fatalities were reported.
The language from both capitals had hardened into something closer to ultimatum. On Truth Social, President Trump warned that the US might be forced to 'militarily complete the job,' adding that if that moment came, 'the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist.' Iran's foreign ministry condemned the American strikes as acts of terrorism and threatened to abandon negotiations entirely if the attacks continued. The Revolutionary Guard Corps promised a stronger response to any future violations. Vice President Vance, speaking on television hours before the latest exchange, framed the administration's position with blunt confidence: whether a deal was reached or not, America wins — a formulation that left little room for the possibility of mutual loss.
The immediate trigger for Sunday's Iranian response was Saturday's US bombing campaign, which targeted Iranian surveillance infrastructure, communication systems, air defense sites, and drone storage facilities. Iran disputed the framing entirely, insisting it was the US that had broken the ceasefire first. Abroad, condemnations came quickly — from Italy, Jordan, the UAE, and the two nations directly struck. Meanwhile, Iran's foreign minister was in Baghdad, insisting that control of the Strait of Hormuz was Tehran's alone and warning that any challenge to that authority would only deepen the crisis.
The negotiations — if they could still be called that — were collapsing in real time. Both sides accused the other of bad faith. Both sides prepared for the next round. And the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant share of the world's oil passes, remained the contested prize at the center of it all.
The cycle turned again on Sunday morning. Iran launched drones and missiles at American military installations in Kuwait and Bahrain, striking back after the US had hit Iranian targets the day before in retaliation for what Washington said was an Iranian drone attack on a cargo ship in the Strait of Hormuz. Within an hour of the Iranian strikes, air defense systems activated across the Gulf. Kuwaiti forces reported intercepting incoming missiles and drones. Bahrain's interior ministry confirmed sirens sounding across the country. When the dust settled, a residential building near Bahrain's international airport stood damaged—its top floor obliterated, windows blown out, rubble spilling from what had been eight stories. Kuwait reported no injuries or damage from the intercepted strikes. Bahrain said no one was killed in the attack on the residential structure.
The language from both capitals had hardened into something closer to ultimatum. President Trump, posting on Truth Social after the US strikes on Saturday, wrote that there may come a point when the US is "forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started." He added a darker note: "If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist." Iran's foreign ministry responded by condemning what it called terrorist airstrikes and reasserting its determination to defend national sovereignty. More significantly, Tehran threatened to halt negotiations entirely if American attacks continued. The Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, speaking through spokesperson Hossein Mohebi on state television, promised a stronger response to any future US violations of the ceasefire agreement.
Vice President JD Vance, speaking to HBO's Bill Maher hours before the latest exchange of fire, articulated the administration's calculus with striking simplicity. "If we make the final deal, then great," he said. "If we don't make the final deal, their nuclear program is still destroyed. They're still much weaker as a country, so my attitude is America wins either way." It was a formulation that left little room for the other side's concerns or the possibility of mutual loss.
The immediate trigger for Sunday's Iranian strikes was Saturday's US bombing campaign. According to US Central Command, those strikes targeted what it described as Iran's military surveillance infrastructure, communication systems, air defense sites, drone storage facilities, and minelayer capabilities—all framed as a direct response to what the Pentagon called continued Iranian aggression against commercial shipping. Iran disputed this framing entirely, insisting it was the US that had violated the ceasefire agreement first.
Abroad, the Iranian strikes drew swift condemnation. Italy's foreign minister Antonio Tajani warned that further escalation risked destroying the diplomatic progress that had been painstakingly assembled. Jordan's foreign ministry called the attacks brutal and a blatant breach of international law. The UAE's government described them as a violation of sovereignty. Kuwait and Bahrain, the two nations directly targeted, issued their own denunciations.
Meanwhile, Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi was in Baghdad meeting with his Iraqi counterpart, discussing not just the immediate crisis but the longer question of the Strait of Hormuz itself. Araghchi insisted that restoring maritime traffic to pre-war levels in the strait was Tehran's responsibility alone and warned that any challenge to Iranian control of the waterway would increase tensions. He also reiterated Iran's position that any US-brokered memorandum of understanding with Israel required Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and an end to strikes there—a reference to the fact that even as the US and Iran traded blows in the Gulf, Israeli forces were continuing military operations in southern Lebanon just two days after signing a ceasefire framework with Hezbollah.
The architecture of these negotiations—if they could still be called that—was collapsing in real time. Both sides accused the other of breaking faith. Both sides prepared for the next round. The Revolutionary Guard Corps made clear it would respond more forcefully than before if the US continued what it saw as violations. Trump's language suggested a willingness to escalate beyond what had already been attempted. And in the background, the Strait of Hormuz—one of the world's most critical shipping lanes—remained contested territory, with Iran controlling access and the US determined to keep it open.
Citações Notáveis
There may come a point when we are no longer able to be reasonable, and will be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started.— President Donald Trump, on Truth Social
If we make the final deal, then great. If we don't make the final deal, their nuclear program is still destroyed. They're still much weaker as a country, so my attitude is America wins either way.— Vice President JD Vance, to HBO's Bill Maher
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does Trump keep saying he'll "complete the job"? What job is actually unfinished here?
He's suggesting that the military campaign against Iran's capabilities—the strikes on their air defenses, their drone facilities, their surveillance systems—could go further. The implication is that a full military operation could eliminate Iran's ability to threaten US interests entirely. It's a threat wrapped in the language of inevitability.
But Iran just attacked back. Doesn't that suggest the strikes aren't working?
That's the trap both sides are in. Each side sees the other's retaliation as proof of aggression, not as a response. Trump sees Iran's Sunday strikes as violation of a ceasefire Iran claims the US broke first. Iran sees the US strikes as unprovoked. Neither side is wrong about the sequence—they just disagree about who started it.
What about the people in Bahrain? That building was destroyed.
A residential building near the airport took a direct hit. The top floor was completely gone. Bahrain said no one died, but that's almost beside the point—the fact that Iranian missiles reached civilian infrastructure shows how thin the line between military and civilian targets has become. It's a reminder that these aren't abstract military operations.
Vance said "America wins either way." Does that actually make sense?
Only if you accept his premise that weakening Iran militarily is the goal regardless of whether a deal happens. But that logic assumes Iran has no similar calculus—that they're not also thinking they can absorb damage and still come out ahead. It's a dangerous symmetry.
What's the Strait of Hormuz issue? Why does it matter so much?
It's the world's most critical oil shipping lane. Iran controls access to it. If Iran can threaten shipping there, it has leverage over global energy markets. The US wants it kept open and toll-free. Iran is suggesting it might not be, which is both a threat and a negotiating tool. Araghchi's comments in Baghdad were essentially saying: if you keep attacking us, we'll make the strait even more dangerous.
Is there any off-ramp here?
Iran said it would halt negotiations if the strikes continue. That's technically an off-ramp—a way to signal that further escalation crosses a line. But Trump's language suggests he's willing to cross it. The Revolutionary Guard Corps has already promised a stronger response. Both sides are essentially saying: we can go higher. The question is whether either side actually wants to.