The US and Iran exchange attacks again in the Gulf and shake the ceasefire agreement
Tehran answers Washington's bombings with an attack against American targets in Bahrain
BeirutJust a few hours after the American bombings on the southern coast of Iran, Tehran responded. This Saturday, the Revolutionary Guard announced attacks against United States positions in the Gulf region and warned that any new aggression would provoke a "broader" response. At the same time, in Lebanon, the framework agreement signed the previous day in Washington between Beirut and Israel was already born under the noise of explosions and internal dissent.
The two de-escalation initiatives promoted by Donald Trump's administration – the understanding with Iran and the new framework for southern Lebanon – have begun to falter almost at the same time. The new crisis was triggered after Washington accused Iran of attacking a merchant ship in the Strait of Hormuz, epicenter of the third Gulf War. The United States responded Friday night with attacks against missile and drone depots, as well as against Iranian radar systems. Tehran denounced a "flagrant violation" of the agreement reached in mid-June and this Saturday responded by attacking targets linked to the United States in the region. At the same time, it warned the Gulf monarchies not to allow the use of their territory for future American operations.
Tension also moved to the sea. A second oil tanker reported this Saturday that a projectile had attacked it near Omani waters, in the Strait of Hormuz, fueling fears of a new escalation in a route through which an essential part of global energy trade passes. United States Vice President J. D. Vance has warned the theocratic regime that it will respond to violence with more violence. "Iran signed a ceasefire agreement. We have respected it. If they have disagreements about how the memorandum of understanding is being applied, they can pick up the phone – he wrote on X–. Violence will be met with violence".
In recent days, both Tehran and, above all, Washington had celebrated the reopening of Hormuz as a fact, even though reality clashed with these triumphalist pronouncements: the flow of ships crossing the strait remained very, very far from the usual traffic before the war. The blockade remains almost intact on the northern route, the main one that runs along the Iranian coast. On the other hand, traffic had increased considerably in recent days along the southern route, which borders Oman. In fact, throughout the week, traffic through Hormuz had been growing to reach almost 50% of pre-war levels, and more than half of the cargo ships used the southern route to leave the corridor. On the northern route, however, traffic had been reduced mainly to the use of Iranian-flagged vessels.
Several analysts believe that both Iran and the US are trying to establish control over the Strait of Hormuz. Iran, which knows that its negotiation capacity with Washington depends on keeping the key to Hormuz in its hands, maintains that Article 5 of the memorandum of understanding signed by Trump leaves the coordination of traffic through the strait to Tehran, and sells it to the Iranian population as a great strategic triumph. Now uncertainty is once again evident and an escalation is feared again.
Lebanon, in the rearview mirror
While the Gulf once again became the scene of attacks, Lebanon awoke to an even more fragile ceasefire. The agreement signed in Washington provides for a gradual withdrawal of Israeli troops from the south of the country, the deployment of the Lebanese army, and the creation of a military coordination mechanism supervised by the United States, in addition to a process aimed at dismantling Hezbollah's military infrastructure. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam defended the text as an opportunity to "achieve a complete Israeli withdrawal and restore state sovereignty." For his part, President Joseph Aoun assured that the agreement represents "the beginning of a process" that should allow the return of the displaced and reiterated that the ultimate goal is the exclusive sovereignty of the Lebanese state.
But the first signs of rejection arrived quickly. Hezbollah deputy Hassan Fadlallah warned that any attempt to impose certain clauses of the agreement or to address the disarmament of the resistance could push the country towards a new civil war. Shortly after, the tension moved to the streets. During the early morning, hundreds of Hezbollah supporters gathered in the southern suburbs of Beirut and in the center of the capital to denounce what they considered a capitulation to Israel. The Lebanese army used tear gas to disperse the demonstrators, who had blocked the airport road. Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem also gave political shape to this rejection. He called the agreement an "humiliation" and an "abandonment of sovereignty," accused the government of offering Israel concessions it had not achieved on the battlefield, and rejected any direct negotiation with the Hebrew state. He also warned that linking the Israeli withdrawal to the disarmament of the resistance could legitimize a prolonged occupation of the south of the country.
On the ground, the truce also showed no signs of consolidating. Less than twenty-four hours after the agreement was signed, the Israeli army carried out an attack in Nabatieh al-Fawqa against alleged Hezbollah fighters and resumed demolitions near Bint Jbeil.
And so, in the Middle East, agreements barely have time to dry on paper before confronting the reality on the ground. And this Saturday, both in the waters of Hormuz and in the hills of southern Lebanon, the sound of explosions once again tested the promise of a new regional de-escalation.
