After two days of mutual strikes between the United States and Iran, the confrontation has entered an uncertain phase. The intensity of the attacks has dropped compared with the war that began on February 28. The memorandum of understanding signed on June 17 faced its most serious test since it took effect: Washington said that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps attacked ships in the Strait of Hormuz. The United States responded with strikes on more than 170 targets inside Iran over 48 hours, but intermediaries immediately began to rein in escalation. Although Donald Trump declared the ceasefire “over,” communications channels continued to function.
Against this backdrop, a “gray zone” is taking shape over the coming days between war and peace, including three main scenarios. The first is a possible return by Washington and Tehran to the negotiating table with the support of regional mediators. According to Axios, Qatar and Pakistan are actively trying to reduce tension and restart dialogue; Qatar’s negotiators have already traveled to Iran “with U.S. coordination.” A senior U.S. official told Al Jazeera that Washington remains committed to talks and technical consultations toward a permanent agreement. Trump also claimed that Iran asked to “continue the ‘conversations,’” but the United States responded that “the ceasefire is over.”
However, Iran’s foreign ministry denies that it requested new talks and says it only agreed to the visit of a Qatari delegation in order to break the deadlock. Head of Iran’s parliament Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf left the door open, but tied it firmly to the principle of deterrence: “If the Americans violate the understandings, we are ready for total defense and will defend the rights of the Iranian people.” He emphasized that ending the war is a priority for the whole world, but the conflict “will never end in Iran’s capitulation.” Military analyst Alex Alveraz Schirz warns that any negotiations will yield “too little” if at least minimal trust is not restored.
The second scenario is the continuation of “managed escalation,” while maintaining balance at the level of limited strikes. This pattern repeats since April: tension in the strait, then a U.S. strike on Iranian military facilities, followed by a temporary lull that is once again tested. In essence, there is a struggle over the “rules of the road” in Hormuz: Iran does not want a safe route beyond its control to appear near the Omani coast, while the United States seeks to lock in the free passage of ships. Researcher Jessica Geinaur, in an article for The Conversation, predicts an outcome close to a “frozen conflict”: no real ceasefire, no full-scale war—just continued strikes, a partially open and dangerous strait, and unresolved disputes (for example, parallel shipping lanes that the memorandum did not clearly resolve).
The third, least likely but most dangerous scenario is the conflict growing into a large-scale war, especially if strikes hit civilian, oil, and water infrastructure inside Iran. The risk rises sharply if the United States shifts from coastal military targets to vital infrastructure. There is also a threat of a full maritime blockade or the “seizure” of Khark Island. Mohammad Baqer Zul-Kadar, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, warned: “Attacks on infrastructure will entail similar retaliatory actions.” Indicators of such a scenario include expanding strikes to vital targets, attacks on additional U.S. bases and platforms, and the intermediaries losing the ability to control the tempo—turning restrained responses into an uncontrolled chain reaction.
Of the three options, managed escalation while keeping the door open for negotiations appears to be the most likely in the short term. Both sides are trying to improve their positions rather than get drawn into an endless war. However, the Strait of Hormuz has stopped being just a point on a possible agreement—it has become a daily test of the balance of power between Washington and Tehran. The coming days may be calmer in terms of the number of strikes, but that by no means guarantees a path to peace.
Comments on the news
What is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and why is it considered one of Iran’s key institutions of power? – The IRGC is an elite military-political formation created after the 1979 Islamic Revolution to protect the theocratic regime. Unlike the regular army, it reports directly to the Supreme Leader (rahbar), controls missile forces, intelligence services, and key economic sectors (oil, construction). Its influence goes beyond defense: the IRGC acts as a “state within a state,” shaping Iran’s foreign policy (especially in the Middle East) and suppressing domestic protests. For international audiences, it is important to understand that the IRGC is not just an army, but a tool of ideological and economic domination by the ruling elite.
Why is Khark Island important for Iran’s economy, and what consequences could its blockade have for the conflict in the Strait of Hormuz? – Khark Island is Iran’s largest oil terminal, through which about 90% of Iran’s crude oil exports pass. Its blockade (for example, during a military conflict) paralyzes Iran’s economy, depriving the country of up to 80% of its hard-currency inflows. For global markets, this will lead to a sharp rise in oil prices and supply instability, since 20–25% of the world’s oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz. Escalation around Khark and the strait could trigger a large-scale maritime blockade, military clashes involving the U.S. Navy and allies, as well as a temporary closure of the strait—a scenario that would cause an energy crisis in Asia and Europe.
What exactly was the June 17 Memorandum of Understanding, which—according to the article—was at risk of falling apart? – This refers to a temporary agreement between Iran and the IAEA signed on June 17, 2023, which provided for monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the removal of part of the sanctions. Under it, Tehran allowed the agency’s inspectors access to certain facilities (including disputed centrifuges) and committed not to enrich uranium above 60% for 60 days. However, by the time of the article, the agreement was at risk due to disagreements between the parties: Iran demanded full sanctions relief, while the West insisted on new restrictions. The collapse of the memorandum would have threatened to deepen Iran’s diplomatic isolation and could have sparked another round of nuclear confrontation.
Full version: هل تتوسع حرب إيران؟ 3 سيناريوهات بعد هجمات مضيق هرمز