In the news
On 17 July, President Trump signalled the possibility of expanding the scope of US strikes to include civilian and energy infrastructure, while the CENTCOM stated that the strikes were "designed to continue degrading Iran's ability to threaten commercial shipping.”
On 18 July, Iran intensified its attacks on US allies and bases in the region, including Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Saudi Arabia after Washington’s attacks on Tehran’s civilian infrastructure and power facilities.
On the same day, the US CENTCOM stated that two US military personnel were killed in Jordan and another was missing in action after an Iranian attack, while Iran's supreme leader said Washington would pay for "seeking to escalate the conflict" after a seventh straight night of US attacks.
On 20 July, Qatar, Egypt Pakistan and other regional mediators presented the US and Iran with a proposal for a 10-day ceasefire as a window to further negotiations.
President Trump issued severe threats against Iran, stating that "Every time Iran kills an American Soldier, they will pay for that killing â many times over.”
On 22 July, the US launched a fresh wave of attacks in Iran’s Bushner Province, home to Iran’s only nuclear plant.
On the same day, the US Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, stated that the war in Iran has cost the US USD 37 billion by latest estimates. He requested the Senate Appropriation Committee for an additional USD 70 billion in funds.
Issues at large
1. Escalating military action
The recent escalation marked one of the deadliest pints of the renewed US-Iran war with aggressive rhetoric and hedging, particularly from the US side. Washington seeks to degrade Iran’s key defence and civilian infrastructure to nudge negotiations in its favour. However, President Trump’s increasingly inflammatory statements have escalated tensions. This rhetoric has been matched by a steep expansion in the scope of US strikes, and a stark US military buildup. Iran has also threatened to pursue “eye-for-an-eye” response to US military action.
2. Iran’s retaliatory posture and regional spillover
Tehran has demonstrated notable resilience against the growing intensity of US strikes. Beyond the defensive posture, Iran has significantly widened the scope of its attacks; it has repeatedly launched ballistic missiles and drones against US military installations and assets in neighbouring countries, drawing Washington's regional allies into the fray. Kuwait faced sustained Iranian attacks, with its forces intercepting ballistic missiles and drones. The attacks also damaged Kuwait’s desalination plants and Kuwait Petroleum Corporation reported one of its oil facilities were hit, causing significant damage and injuries. In Bahrain, the IRGC targeted Sheikh Isa Air Base, a hub for US combat aircraft, and an intelligence data centre. In Jordan, Iranian missiles and drones struck the US base at Al Azraq, destroying at least two US fighter jets and three other aircraft. Simultaneously, Iran has leveraged its network of regional proxies to amplify pressure, the Houthis in Yemen to threaten and potentially blockade Red Sea shipping routes. Houthi missile and drone attacks on vessels and announcements of blockades targeting Saudi-linked shipping, have compounded the disruptions already caused by the Hormuz crisis.
3. The waning window of negotiations
Despite multiple attempts by Pakistan and other mediators to broker de-escalation, most recently the 10-day truce aimed at halting strikes and resuming talks, these initiatives have consistently failed amid escalating military exchanges and inflammatory rhetoric from both sides. As the conflict entered one of its most intense and hostile phases, with daily US airstrikes met by Iranian retaliatory attacks on regional targets and shipping, both parties have openly flouted ceasefire understandings, further eroding trust. The cycle of tit-for-tat strikes, coupled with high-level threats including US vows of infrastructure retaliation and Iranian pledges of “eye-for-an-eye” responses, has significantly diminished prospects for a near-term diplomatic breakthrough. Moreover, the growing emphasis on revenge for casualties and perceived aggressions has made negotiations politically costly.
In perspective
Washington seeks to militarily coerce Iran to its terms, but Tehran continues to hold its ground and refuses to concede its new-found leverage over the strait, which has now become the central flashpoint of the conflict. Washington’s strategy appears cantered on militarily degrading Iran’s key defence infrastructure and prolonging the conflict in hopes that Tehran will eventually return to the negotiating table on US terms. However, Iran has secured more relative gains so far, and has effectively turned the waterway into its central bargaining chip. Washington cannot simply walk away without losing face if shipping through the strait is not restored on its terms. Prolonged disruption risks an economic fallout and political embarrassment at home. Simultaneously, Iran is determined to institutionalise its control, which it views as a legitimate post-war gain. However, the spillover of the conflict and the prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz could eventually turn the winds against Tehran. A drawn-out “forever war” would likely exhaust Iran’s defences over time, especially if countries successfully develop alternative shipping routes or adopt a more unified retaliatory stance. The high stakes of the strait had locked Washington and Tehran in a dangerous standoff, with neither willing to back down easily, and the escalation churning into broader war.
