An exchange of strikes between the US and Iran has placed an already precarious ceasefire under further strain, with analysts suggesting that Tehran considers a show of force to be the best way to reinforce its position in peace negotiations.
The US must understand the full extent of Iran’s willingness to respond to attacks on its soil, Tehran-based analyst Mahdi Sadegh told The National. “What happened this week was a test of Iran's deterrence, and we passed that test with our heads held high.”
The US on Tuesday carried out what it described as “self-defence strikes” on Qeshm, an Iranian island in the Strait of Hormuz, in response to what it called “attempted attacks by Iran across the Middle East”.
Iran said it retaliated by launching strikes on the US Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain, as well as on Kuwait and US military ships in the area.
Kuwait said an Iranian drone struck its international airport on Wednesday morning, killing one person and injuring dozens in one of the Gulf's worst days of the war in terms of casualties.
The US military's Central Command said all of the drones and missiles fired by Iran at its forces had failed to hit their targets. It rejected a claim by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps that damage to the Kuwait airport's passenger terminal was caused by a malfunctioning American air defence system.
The IRGC said its enemies had been “forced to accept the new rules” imposed by Iran, and that any hostile move would meet a “decisive, crushing and wider response than before”.
Tehran reasserting boundaries
For Tehran, retaliation to the Qeshm strikes was a way of indicating to the US that its Gulf bases and allies will be threatened if Iranian territory comes under fire. While former supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was relatively reluctant to enter into conflict with the US and Israel, that has now changed with a new, bolder leadership possessing a greater appetite for confrontation.
Tehran has prevented ships from crossing the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which about a fifth of the world’s oil and gas normally passes, unless they co-ordinate in advance with Iran. The US began a parallel blockade of Iran’s southern ports in April when indirect talks in Pakistan did not bear fruit.
This week’s escalation was also born of Iran's belief that it needs to use force to define its red lines and prevent the cards it holds from slipping out of its hands. The US has gradually intensified its naval blockade and is trying to help ships cross the Strait of Hormuz.
Meanwhile, if Iran does nothing to stop Israel's offensive against its Lebanese proxy Hezbollah, this could indicate that Tehran is abandoning the so-called Axis of Resistance.
These factors “have led to the interpretation that inaction may gradually erode Iran's main leverage, which is Hormuz and also its network of alliances, in this case especially Hezbollah”, Hamidreza Azizi, a Berlin-based analyst focusing on Iran, told The National. “That explains why Iran resorted to this kind of escalation, because from their perspective, 'the result would be the same, so we escalate. Either we get back to the war or we can kind of reaffirm our red lines'.”
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Lebanese broadcaster Al Mayadeen on Wednesday that Iran would respond to any Israeli strikes on the Lebanese capital Beirut, potentially leading to a return to all-out war.
Chances of an agreement?
This week's escalation is a sign of the fragility of diplomatic efforts to end the war, analysts say. Iran and the US have exchanged, through mediator Pakistan, drafts of an agreement to extend the April 8 ceasefire by 60 days, enabling the Strait of Hormuz to be reopened. This could pave the way for more substantive talks over Iran’s nuclear programme, including key issues including the fate of its stock of highly enriched uranium.
Talks have not been cut off, though very little substantive progress has been made, Mr Araghchi told Al Mayadeen.
Mr Trump has repeatedly claimed that the talks are going well. In a post on Truth Social on Thursday, he claimed he was in “final negotiations to end the war”, in an apparent attempt to telegraph a successful exit as domestic opposition to the conflict and its economic ramifications grows.
A diplomatic off-ramp “remains within reach”, the International Crisis Group has said in a briefing note. But this should not be confused with a definitive end to the fighting, and would probably still involve disputes over the scope of any initial agreement.
There are widespread fears among observers that any agreement will not prevent Iran from reimposing restrictions on the Strait of Hormuz and disrupting global energy supplies. Nor would it fully settle disagreements over Tehran’s nuclear programme, with little common ground over Iran’s right to enrich uranium. Iran’s demands for compensation and security guarantees are expected to go unmet, paving the way for future conflict.
Iran hawks in Israel and the US are unlikely to be satisfied by an interim agreement that kicks the can down the road on such concerns as Tehran’s ballistic missile programme and nuclear enrichment, which leaves a chance of renewed conflict.
“The memorandum of understanding that has been mooted would not resolve the conflict,” the International Crisis Group said. “Rather, it would open a 60-day window for more detailed talks that would be tantamount to a contest over what exactly was agreed.”
Mr Sadegh sees three possible scenarios.
In the first scenario, the two sides “back off for a few days”, mediators start passing messages again and negotiations resume, “because neither side wants this war to continue”.
In a second scenario, the escalation this week sets off an upward spiral of violence in which Iran would extend its attacks to US bases in other countries including Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
A third option, preferred by Tehran, is that negotiations resume with Iran having demonstrated strength through this week’s escalation. This is a “return with a full hand”, Mr Sadegh said. “Negotiations are resumed, but this time with the understanding that Iran is a decisive player, not a weak party.”
At the same time, the US blockade in the Strait of Hormuz has hampered Iran’s imports and exports through its main naval trade route. Despite Tehran’s ability and willingness to absorb significant pressure, and its having determined that it can outlast Mr Trump’s appetite to keep the blockade in place, it may eventually have to find a way around it.
Tehran “knows that by using [the Strait of Hormuz], it can apply pressure, it knows it has this card”, a second Tehran-based analyst said.
“At the same time, there is the fact that the blockade itself has very serious effects on Iran's economy, and it can’t have such conditions continuing for several months.”
