Following the first strikes in the US-Iran war for a month, this week, United States President Donald Trump appeared to signal a new phase in the war, which marked its first six months on Friday last week.
“We’re going to hit them hard … there will be a response,” Trump told reporters on Monday, shortly after Iran launched missile attacks on US military sites in Jordan in response to its strikes on Iran’s Larak Island the previous night.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
US news outlet Axios reported Washington may be switching to a new “no war, no peace” strategy in the conflict in which it aims to hit Iran periodically without engaging in a sustained conflict.
So, what exactly is Trump’s strategy now, and can the US military sustain it as the war enters its seventh month?
What happened on Monday?
The US struck military targets on Larak Island in the Strait of Hormuz, close to Iran’s strategic port of Bandar Abbas. Washington said its forces hit two Iranian rocket launchers which it claimed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) was preparing to use to scatter sea mines into the strait.
Iranian media reported three people were killed. Iran subsequently launched missiles at two airbases hosting US military personnel and assets in Jordan. Jordan said it intercepted eight missiles. In turn, Trump pledged to respond, saying: “We’re going to hit them hard.”
Speaking at a Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said his forces would cease fire if the US did the same, and if it fulfilled its commitments under an interim deal signed in June to end the war, lift sanctions and open the Strait of Hormuz. That deal has since expired, however, and largely fell apart because of disagreements arising from its vague wording.
Monday’s exchange of fire marked the first direct attacks between the two sides in more than a month and raised fears that the conflict could return to a more intense military phase.
Trump, however, told media that the renewed fighting did not necessarily mean a return to full-scale war, saying the Strait of Hormuz is in “extremely good shape” while claiming Iran’s financial system, military, and leadership had been largely degraded.
“That doesn’t mean we won’t smack them. We’ll see what happens,” he told reporters at the White House.
How has the US war strategy shifted during the conflict?
The Trump administration’s approach to the war on Iran has been ever-changing. It began with a full-blown military campaign that lasted for 40 days, followed by a ceasefire which was later extended.
In June, Tehran and Washington signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU), agreeing to terms for a ceasefire and allowing wider peace talks for 60 days.
The woolly wording of the MoU, especially related to who had overall control of the Strait of Hormuz, caused it to collapse within weeks, with the US and Iran blaming each other for violating its terms. That led to a renewal of US attacks on Iran in July, with Tehran again retaliating against US military assets and other infrastructure in neighbouring Gulf countries.
More recently, the Trump administration shifted from sustained military action to economic pressure instead. That shift came amid US media reports that its forces were running low on munitions in the Middle East, particularly in supplies of critical Patriot interceptor missiles used to defend against Iranian drone and missile strikes. The Trump administration denies it is running out of weapons, however.
Last week, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced an economic pressure campaign against Iran, declaring that it would target its financial interests across the world.
He said the US would target Iran’s revenue sources, including oil; sanctioned 60 “entities” it claimed were facilitating Iranian oil sales; and threatened other countries and companies doing business with Tehran with the possibility of secondary sanctions.
On Monday, Bessent said the Iranian strikes were evidence Tehran was “lashing out kinetically because they are losing economically”, arguing that the new sanctions were beginning to hurt it.
Iran’s Central Bank Governor Abdolnaser Hemmati responded, saying the assertion that its economy was collapsing was “incorrect”.
“I say to the American president that we have enough foreign currency,” he told a news conference.
Is the US heading to a ‘no war, no peace’ strategy?
The current situation increasingly resembles an unstable middle ground with solutions rapidly disappearing, observers say.
While neither side appears to be seeking an immediate return to full-scale war, both have demonstrated that they are prepared to respond militarily when they believe their interests are threatened.
On Monday, Axios reported the Trump administration is considering the strategy of periodically attacking Iran to keep moving oil tankers out of the Gulf region safely. The plan for a sporadic return to military strikes on Iran has yet to be approved by Trump, it reported.
Iran effectively closed the critical Strait of Hormuz in early March, following the start of the war and has not allowed it to operate fully since, letting only a few ships it deems “friendly” to pass at times. Now, both sides say they control the waterway, with Iran firing rockets intermittently at vessels attempting to get through without its approval, and Trump claiming the US Navy is successfully escorting ships.
Since the MoU broke down, with the US resuming strikes on Iran in July, Iran says it refuses to engage diplomatically with Washington, and has held talks only with Oman over the future administration of Hormuz.
Trita Parsi, director and cofounder of the US-based Quincy Institute, said, “To periodically bomb a country is to fight a forever war … there is no way around it.”
“The [Trump] administration seems to be giving up on solving the issue militarily, economically, or diplomatically, and instead resorting to permanent warfare to manage the problem,” he told Al Jazeera.
“An utter defeat from the US’s starting point of thinking the war would take no more than four days.”
Is Trump’s new strategy of sporadic warfare sustainable?
Analysts say there are a number of reasons the US may not be able to keep up the pressure on Iran indefinitely.
Mohammad Eslami, a research fellow at the University of Tehran, said the Trump administration is ultimately trying to pursue a “calculated” conflict with Iran for control of the strait, which had been entirely and freely open to all shipping before the war began.
“We should consider that this war was based on miscalculations in Washington, DC, and right now, it seems that they are very confident about their decisions” regarding the trajectory of the war on Iran, Eslami told Al Jazeera.
But the risk is that sporadic strikes, such as those which took place this week, will further escalate tensions in the region, he said.
Negar Mortazavi, senior fellow at the Washington, DC-based Center for International Policy, says renewed escalation became inevitable after the collapse of the MoU.
“Iran has made its position clear: if Washington returns to the MoU, Tehran will return as well; if the US continues to prioritise military pressure, Iran will escalate,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera. “A mutual return to the MoU remains the clearest path to de-escalation.”
Otherwise, she warned, both sides risk losing control of the situation.
While Iran says it has reached a framework of agreement for the future management of the Strait of Hormuz with Oman, “the Americans are thinking that they don’t need any kind of diplomatic settlement right now”, Eslami added.
“[Instead] they want to wait until after the [US] November midterm elections” and continue exerting economic pressure on Iran, he said.
However, traffic through the strait remains at all-time lows, having slumped from about 100 ships a day to a daily average of seven through the war. Furthermore, Mortazavi said, “Tehran will not capitulate under [economic] pressure. Both sides may believe they can control the escalation, but every new exchange increases the risk of a wider regional conflict.”
It is also unclear how long the US can keep up strikes on Iran – no matter how infrequent – due to speculation it is running low on munitions.
Then there is the political cost to Trump of sustaining the war. His approval rating at home has fallen to 33 percent as higher petrol prices and the prolonged war have created growing domestic pressure for him.
Where does Israel stand in all of this?
The war on Iran began as a joint US-Israeli military campaign, but the two countries now appear to have differing priorities.
Last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated that he was determined to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, despite a lack of evidence Tehran is currently pursuing one.
Israel has officially struck Iran only once since April’s initial ceasefire took effect, but it has been obstructive regarding the June MoU, refusing to withdraw from southern Lebanon despite the agreement stipulating a ceasefire on all fronts.
However, the US’s priority is finding an exit from the war, which includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz and reducing the economic and political costs of the conflict, as it heads towards midterm elections in November.
Parsi of Quincy Institute said the two allies’ interests no longer converge. “The US does not have an interest in eternal war with Iran.”
