An apparent agreement by the US and Iran to pause a fresh outburst of violence stabilized a truce that is the first step to permanently ending the war and underscored that each side has a vital national interest in doing so.
The accommodation follows days of clashes around the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf that were best understood as the foes wrestling to define their vague memorandum of understanding and to shape looming talks on critical issues — including Tehran’s nuclear program.
A Trump administration official said the two sides agreed to meet in Qatar on Tuesday and that they will “stand down for now.” There was no immediate comment from Iran.
Four days of Iranian attacks on merchant ships, US reprisals, and Tehran’s follow-on strikes on US bases and Gulf allies risked an escalation into broader fighting and jeopardized global economic relief as oil begins to move through the strait. They also appear to have violated the terms of the memorandum of understanding that both sides signed.
Iran was seeking to defend its new seam of leverage — the capacity to manage traffic through a waterway critical to the global economy. Its missile strikes on Gulf states and US assets suggested an attempt to set a new postwar regional strategic paradigm. Tehran also seemed to be turning a political screw against President Donald Trump and testing how far his patience will stretch as he seeks to preserve what he has characterized as a triumphant deal to end the war.
Washington could not allow Iran to control shipping through the strait. To do so would suggest it was defeated in a war it started. The Islamic Republic would acquire the capacity to take the global economy hostage and to exert political pressure on the US at any moment it chose. In the process, US power in the region, expressed by its capacity to protect allies, would weaken.
Iran’s belligerence followed a trip to the Gulf by Secretary of State Marco Rubio last week, which saw the US and its allies back free, unconditional and unrestricted navigation in the strait without Iranian tolls, fees or “attempts to exert control.” This was seen as an attempt to resolve ambiguities in the agreement — which, while stating Iran must restore free passage and restore maritime traffic, seemed to leave open its possible monetization of navigation in future.
But the cycle of Iranian provocations and US reprisals was a dangerous game. It threatened to acquire its own momentum with the prestige of the mercurial US president on the line in a week when he’s trying to appear all-powerful and to make himself the focus of 250th anniversary celebrations of the Declaration of Independence.
Trump threatened on Sunday that if Iran continued “violating” the ceasefire, it “will no longer exist.” Although his supporters might conclude his warning succeeded in forcing Tehran to step back, the Iranians learned not to take his most bellicose rhetoric seriously during the war. And the president agreed to what many critics saw as a capitulation to Iran after arguing that he didn’t want to cause a major economic slump by continuing the conflict.
But Trump is often defined by his inconsistency. In future, it might be dangerous for Tehran to assume that he will always act in predictable ways or that he’ll shy away from a huge escalation.
Still, behind the latest flare-ups, there was always a strategic rationale that augured against a return to full-scale war. Iran is accruing enormous benefits from the memorandum. The US has moved to waive some sanctions pending a final agreement. And Tehran has begun to ship millions of barrels of its own oil again as it seeks to revive a buckled economy.
An uptick in all maritime traffic through the strait, meanwhile, helped eased global oil prices and brought the promise of cheaper gasoline — an important consideration as an affordability crisis helps to depress Trump’s approval ratings before midterm elections. Average US gasoline prices dipped to $3.87 a gallon Sunday, according to AAA. This is still 30% higher than before the war, but well below a peak of $4.56 in late May.
Unlike some of his modern predecessors, Trump avoided the temptation to double down and escalate a war that appeared headed for an indecisive conclusion that would harm his reputation. But the stark differences between the US and Iran over the strait raise fresh questions about his approach. Before the war that Trump launched, the waterway was open. And the showdowns over its state suggest future talks over more complex issues like Iran’s nuclear program will be even more difficult.
A US official said Sunday that all Iranian drones and missiles targeting US assets in neighboring Kuwait and Bahrain were shot down or failed to reach their targets, CNN’s Zachary Cohen reported. The US had earlier struck targets including Iranian drone and missile storage locations around the Strait of Hormuz. The exchanges were triggered by an Iranian attack on a Singaporean-flagged container ship near the area on Thursday.
US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz warned Sunday that Iranian aggression would be matched by Trump. “If the Iranian regime thinks for a second that President Trump is going to sit by, stand by, while Iran continues to attack international shipping without a response, or our bases without a response, they’re sadly mistaken,” Waltz said on “Fox News Sunday.”
The spiraling strains in the Middle East suggest that Trump’s triumphalism in hailing the memorandum of understanding — a 14-point framework to quell fighting and reach a final deal on all issues within 60 days — was premature.
The conflict and its aftermath have raised questions over the administration’s understanding of the political and historical forces driving Iran’s revolutionary government and its habitual hardline negotiating tactics. Middle East ceasefires often don’t halt all military exchanges even if they establish a ceiling that can prevent the return to all-out war. And wars in the region often end up emboldening new generations of hardliners — like those in Iran who may be orchestrating its efforts to cement its new leverage over the Strait of Hormuz.
Former Biden administration national security adviser Jake Sullivan predicted that recent events were the prelude to a tense period as negotiations take place. The Trump team will hardly welcome his advice. But during the Obama administration, Sullivan played a key role in early stages of talks on the international deal that capped Iran’s nuclear program, which Trump tore up in his first term.
“The Iranians are leaning forward to exercise control over the strait, to remind the world that they control that waterway, then leaning back when the Trump administration objects vigorously enough because the Iranians want to keep getting the windfall that they’ve gotten out of this MOU,” Sullivan told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on Sunday, accurately predicting the evening’s events.
“When it comes to the nuclear file, I think they will dribble out very small concessions bit by bit, then pull them back, then put them forward, then pull them back to keep the United States at the table,” Sullivan said, casting doubt on the chances of solid progress within 60 days.
Renewed clashes in the Middle East are likely to reignite partisan rancor in Washington over the agreement.
Republican Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas downplayed the recent exchanges between the US and Iran. “The major war is over, and think of this as almost just a mop-up operation,” Marshall said of a conflict that is deeply unpopular in the US. He insisted on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Washington was making “great progress” with diplomacy.
Democrats have styled Trump’s MOU as a humiliating defeat for the United States that falls far short of his claims to have solved the conflict. And it may also inflame a heated debate in Congress about Trump’s war powers and the legal justification for his launching of the war that has also worried some Republicans.
What happens next in the Middle East will have serious political and strategic implications.
The key question is whether the confrontations over the strait continue to burn at a controllable level or whether they ignite and destroy the entire agreement and diplomatic process, plunging the region back into full-scale war.
This would test Trump’s clear preference not to prolong a conflict that has proved to be a huge political liability. But continued Iranian challenges would strain the tolerance of a president whose persona revolves around his ostentatious implementation of power and strength globally.
Ultimately, the return to diplomacy might validate Sullivan’s predictions of an agonized and prolonged process. Even if a fragile peace is restored, there’s unlikely to be an easy exit from the war for Trump.
