Missile PR: how far are Iran and the United States ready to go in the conflict
The United States and Iran are exchanging blows. The initiators of the new military action were the United States, which within a few hours fired at least 49 Tomahawk missiles at the facilities of the Islamic Republic. The Iranians responded by strengthening the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and launching a new series of strikes against American targets in the region. At the same time, Donald Trump remains committed to escalatory rhetoric and threatens to bomb Iran if Tehran does not accept the terms of his "landmark deal" soon. Washington considers the possible economic costs to be "proportionate", especially since the global market is responding to the crisis quite calmly. However, even in such circumstances, there are still certain hopes for concluding an interim agreement, experts interviewed by Izvestia believe.
Bombing Diplomacy
A new wave of bombing of Iranian territory began on the night of June 11. The order to launch a "comprehensive operation" was given by the US president, who was unhappy with the progress of peace talks with Tehran. "It took them (Iran - Ed.) too long to discuss a deal that would be great for them, now they will have to pay the price for it," the Republican wrote on Truth Social.
Some time after the publication of the statement, the US military attacked air defense systems, radar stations and command centers in the territory of the Islamic Republic. The strikes mostly hit the same targets as during the escalation the day before. Hits were recorded on the islands of Sirik and Qeshm, as well as in the area of the port of Bandar Abbas. At the same time, over time, the United States expanded the geography of the raid, also attacking targets in the cities of Kargan, Minab, Karaj and Varamin. In total, the Pentagon spent at least 49 Tomahawk missiles.
In addition, US military forces disabled the M/T Jalveer oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman after the vessel violated the blockade against Iran while attempting to transport Iranian oil, marking the third time a commercial vessel has been disabled by US forces this week.
As US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth later explained, US forces will continue to plan attacks on Iran as a means of pressure until diplomatic agreements are concluded. "We are doing this because Iran has a chance to make a good deal, a great deal, to consolidate what they promised to do but didn't really want to do," Hegseth told reporters.
At the same time, the US military has emphasized several times that bombing is one of the tools of comprehensive diplomatic influence on Tehran, this is not preparation for a new large—scale military campaign against Iran, and the response to possible "mirror strikes" from the Islamic Republic is calculated in advance. In addition, the Pentagon and the White House emphasized that neither Israel nor other regional allies of Washington participated in this operation.
Iran responds asymmetrically
At the initial stage, Iran's reaction to the US attacks was not much different from the previous ones. According to an already proven scheme, the IRGC attacked American bases in Bahrain and Kuwait using intermediate-range ballistic missiles (MRBMS) and kamikaze UAVs, and also launched at least 12 MRBMS towards the Muwaffaq Salti airbase in Jordan, where large forces of American strike and transport aircraft have been based since January 2026.
The Pentagon, apparently, expected that Tehran would limit itself only to the specified symbolic framework, and the exchange would end there. However, after some time, Iran continued to strike at "enemy targets" not only on land, but also at sea. Among other things, the republic's naval forces reported on the "defeat of two ships" trying to pass through the Strait of Hormuz during the American bombing.
Majid Mousavi, commander of the IRGC's military space forces, subsequently wrote on social media that the strategic route was "completely closed" to opponents of the Islamic Republic, and any movement along it without Tehran's consent would be severely suppressed. "Are you making the sacred Strait of Hormuz unsafe? We will turn the region into hell for you," he wrote.
The news about the next blocking of the Strait of Hormuz was received relatively calmly by world players. In particular, because in a few months the oil products market has gradually adapted to the crisis, and the increased blockade of the strait no longer causes sharp price spikes. For example, Brent crude oil is trading at about $98 per barrel (price fluctuations have been minimal in the last few days), while at the beginning of the conflict, daily surges were in the tens of dollars. However, according to political analyst Advan Hisham, this situation is more likely due to the belief in the cyclical nature of Tehran's actions.
— Over the past months, Iran has repeatedly announced the cessation of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, and after a while either opened "green corridors" for friendly countries, or lifted restrictions altogether. That's why global players expect it to be the same this time. If the measures to close Hormuz (for one reason or another) are delayed, the world risks facing new shocks in the energy market, the expert warned.
At the same time, global stock markets are reacting more cautiously to the dynamics of events in the Middle East: most investors prefer to wait for the next steps from Tehran and Washington. In contrast, the largest oil companies continue to increase their market value despite the correction in oil prices: BP Plc — by 0.4%, Shell — by 0.5%, TotalEnergies — by 0.7%, Eni — by 0.8%, Equinor — by 2.4%. Moderate growth is observed in the insurance and banking sectors.
Tactics of the USA and Iran
Washington is convinced that their chosen tactic of "moving towards peace through force" is bearing fruit and contributing to an accelerated search for compromises with Tehran. In contrast, the Iranian side insists that the promotion of political solutions in the Middle East is possible only through mediation and dialogue, and not through "constantly recurring threats" broadcast by the US leadership. At the same time, Reuters, citing sources within the Iranian establishment, reports that the parties are still negotiating a preliminary deal, including discussing a mechanism for defrosting Iranian funds previously subject to US sanctions and "reassembling" Tehran's peaceful nuclear program.
— The main sign that there is still room for compromise is the change in US rhetoric regarding this conflict. If at the beginning of the military operation the United States demonstrated relentlessness and firmness in decisions, now de—escalation signals aimed at finding a compromise between the parties are increasingly being heard," political analyst Dastan Tokoldoshev told Izvestia.
According to international expert Hrant Gevorgyan, the current rounds of tension still reproduce the logic of "controlled escalation while maintaining negotiating options" - this is part of the tactics that Tehran and Washington have been following since the beginning of the conflict in February 2026. However, over time, its effectiveness causes more and more disagreements both within and between negotiating teams, and also creates "gray areas" in which a reserve for uncontrolled escalation is being formed.
"Each new cycle narrows the space for diplomatic maneuver, increases the risk of miscalculation and makes the prospect of a full—fledged agreement more dependent on the political will at the level of the top leadership of both countries, rather than on military-technical variables on the ground," Gevorgyan noted.
Since the latest (at the moment) exchange of blows between the United States and Iran has significantly raised the stakes in the asymmetric conflict, Washington and Tehran will have to seriously reevaluate the previously identified "red lines" in the near future, both their own and the opponent's. In particular, in order to avoid an open and high-intensity conflict.
The resumption of hostilities, comparable in scale to the first weeks of March 2026, despite the bellicose rhetoric, still does not meet the interests of either side. However, due to the excessive frequency of exchanges of "warning blows", it is becoming increasingly difficult to convince an opponent of the seriousness of intentions using the available tools.
Trump's ambiguous rhetoric also adds to the concern, threatening Iran with the imminent occupation of the Kharq oil island if a consensus is not reached in the near future.
"The United States will strike at Iran (whose Navy, Air Force, radars, air defenses, and all other defenses, along with most of its offensive capabilities, have disappeared!) a very strong blow tonight. At some point in the near future, we will seize the island of Kharq and other oil facilities and take full control of their oil and gas markets, as we did with Venezuela, which works great for both Venezuela and the United States of America," the Republican wrote on Truth Social.
A hypothetical attempt to capture Kharq would provoke an asymmetric reaction from Tehran — including because the island has significant reserves of national crude oil — and, with a high degree of probability, would lead the conflict beyond symbolic exchanges of blows. Moreover, such a drastic change in the balance of power will provoke large-scale turmoil in the oil markets, increasing their destabilization. At the same time, the United States and Iran are still unable to voluntarily shift the "center of gravity" from the military to the diplomatic plane (and thereby ensure a gradual regional detente) due to insurmountable differences. In particular, because they expect a trick from their opponents.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
