For a second day in a row, the United States has launched strikes against Iran, once again citing an attack against a commercial vessel as a motivation.
Saturday’s renewed attacks are the latest indication that a regional Middle East ceasefire, established as part of a June 17 memorandum of understanding (MOU), might be at a breaking point.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
In a statement, the US Central Command (CENTCOM), which directs military action in the Middle East, explained that the latest attacks came “at the Commander in Chief’s direction”.
“CENTCOM forces launched strikes today in direct response to continued Iranian aggression against commercial shipping,” the military command centre wrote.
“U.S. military aircraft targeted Iranian military surveillance infrastructure, communication systems, air defense sites, drone storage facilities, and minelayer capabilities.”
Explosions were reported in southern Iran around the village of Tahrui, near the port of Sirik, which was also the focal point of Friday’s US attacks. State media also indicated that Qeshm Island had been hit.
Responses to cargo ship strikes
Saturday’s strikes against Iran followed a similar playbook to Friday’s.
Early on Saturday morning, around 4:30am Eastern US time (8:00 GMT), the Panama-flagged tanker Kiku was travelling through the Strait of Hormuz when it was reportedly hit by an unidentified projectile.
No crew members were injured, and no leakage was reported from its cargo.
CENTCOM said the ship had been carrying more than 2 million barrels of crude oil when it was hit by a “one-way attack drone”.
The website MarineTraffic.com indicates that the tanker had left the Al Shaheen oil field on Thursday and is due to dock at Fujairah, in the United Arab Emirates, on Sunday.
A similar sequence of events prompted Friday’s volley of US attacks.
In that case, a Singapore-registered contained ship, the Ever Lovely, was struck by a drone as it sailed through the Hormuz Strait on Thursday. No one on board was injured, and the boat continued on its travels.
Still, US President Donald Trump denounced the drone strike on Friday as a “foolish violation” of the June 17 memorandum.
By that evening, the US and Iran had exchanged fire, with the US targeting the area around Sirik and Iran hitting US military installations in the Middle East.
CENTCOM referenced Friday’s actions in announcing the latest round of strikes.
“After yesterday’s U.S. strikes in response to the Iranian attack on M/V Ever Lovely, Iran was given a chance to honor the ceasefire agreement,” CENTCOM wrote.
Iran “elected not to”, it added, citing the Kiku drone strike. CENTCOM also maintained that commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a sticking point in ceasefire negotiations, would continue, with US military backing.
“U.S. forces remain vigilant, lethal, and ready,” CENTCOM said in its statement.
Controlling the strait
Central to the latest round of fighting is control over the Strait of Hormuz, a key artery for maritime traffic. Nearly 20 percent of the world oil supply passed through the narrow waterway, as well as significant quantities of fertiliser and natural gas.
But after the US and Israel launched attacks on Iran on February 28, launching the present-day war, Tehran moved to shut down traffic through the strait, which sits between its shores and Oman’s.
Iran’s decision sent global fuel prices skyrocketing, and that generated pressure, both domestic and international, for the Trump administration.
The June 17 memorandum was designed to provide relief. Though it was a prelude to further negotiation, the deal called for the US, Iran and their allies to “declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon”.
It also outlined a 60-day period during which time Iran was to make its “best efforts” at allowing commercial traffic to transit through the Strait of Hormuz at no charge.
That part of the memorandum specified that Iran and Oman, the two countries that border the strait, would determine “future administration and maritime services” in the waterway.
But continued fighting in Lebanon has prompted Iran to threaten the strait’s closure once more.
Then, there is the question of the memorandum’s terms. Experts say the US and Iran have come to different understandings of how the June deal should be enforced.
Al Jazeera correspondent Resul Serdar Atas explained that Iran believes it should be allowed to restrict commercial traffic that does not have prior clearance to pass through the strait.
“Article Five of the memorandum of understanding, according to the Iranian officials, is clearly saying that any ship, whether it’s going through the Iranian territorial water or the Omani territorial water, has to be in full coordination with the Iranian authorities,” he said.
“But that is not understanding of Americans. The Americans are saying, ‘Well, if it is going through the Omani territorial waters, they do not need to coordinate with the Iranian authorities.’”
That, in turn, is leading to a disagreement over who is violating the terms of the ceasefire. The US sees Iran as violating the agreement by interfering with commercial vessels, while the Iranians perceive the US as breaking its commitment to stop fighting.
“That is the pattern,” Serdar Atas said. “For Americans, keeping the Strait of Hormuz open is quite important for the stability of the global economy. But for Iran, the Strait of Hormuz being under Iranian control is the ultimate deterrence and the biggest leverage.”
Tit-for-tat ‘could get out of hand’
Some of the hostilities are a result of the high level of distrust between Iran and the US, according Hassan Ahmadian, a professor at the University of Tehran.
He noted that Iran’s insistence that ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz receive its clearance could be read as a defensive action.
“I think the Iranians will not let go of this because obviously they want only commercial ships, according to the MoU, to pass through the strait. So any ship that doesn’t coordinate might be a military one, might carry military stuff,” Ahmadian said.
He believes that the latest flurry of US attacks may prompt Iran to halt any deliberations with the Trump administration as they seek to cement a peace deal.
The US side, meanwhile, is likely to face pressure from rising oil prices as the result of the renewed fighting, according to Harlan Ullman, a retired US naval officer and chairman of The Killowen Group, a global advisory firm.
Still, Ullman warned that the latest exchange of fire could spiral into an escalation in violence, rendering the memorandum of understanding moot.
“The agreements are very, very fragile, and this tit-for-tat could get out of hand,” Ullman said.
“If prices go up, as I suspect they will, that will be a moderating influence, and I think the United States will consider that rising oil prices are not good, and it will probably continue the negotiations. But right now, who knows?”
