The United States struck an Iranian military site and ground control station near Bandar Abbas on May 28, shooting down four Iranian drones it described as threats to US forces and maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz [2][4]. Hours later, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced it had targeted the American air base in Kuwait from which the strikes originated, calling the operation a "serious warning so that the enemy knows that aggression will not go unanswered" [14][19]. The exchange marked the most direct tit-for-tat military action between the two countries since a ceasefire was declared, escalating a conflict now in its 90th day [13].
A senior anonymous US official described the strikes as "measured, purely defensive, and intended to maintain the ceasefire" [2][12]. US Central Command said the operation was conducted "to protect our troops from threats posed by Iranian forces" [15]. Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei rejected that framing, condemning the attacks as ceasefire violations and stating that Iran would "take all necessary measures to defend its national sovereignty" [7][16]. The IRGC warned that any further aggression would draw a "more decisive" response [19].
President Donald Trump, speaking separately, expressed dissatisfaction with the state of negotiations, saying the US was "not satisfied" with the terms and threatening to "finish the job" if a deal is not reached [2][9]. He rejected an Iranian state television report of a draft agreement on the Strait of Hormuz, with the White House branding it a "complete fabrication" [3][9]. Trump also threatened Oman, saying "Oman will behave just like everybody else or we'll have to blow them up" if it cooperated with Iran to impose transit fees on the waterway [18][12]. Iran's foreign ministry expressed solidarity with Oman in response [16].
The diplomatic stalemate centers on several interlocking demands. Ali Bagheri Kani, Iran's deputy secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, stated that "as long as we have not agreed on all issues, we consider that nothing has been agreed," insisting on the return of frozen assets and Iran's right to manage Strait of Hormuz traffic [9]. Ebrahim Azizi, head of the Iranian Parliament's National Security Committee, said Trump's threats would not force Iran to abandon its positions on enrichment, the strait, or sanctions relief [18]. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged "some progress and some interest" but insisted "Iran's never going to have a nuclear weapon" [9]. Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, argued that Trump was "in a very difficult position" because he had "inadvertently given Iran a very powerful weapon by closing the Strait of Hormuz" [18].
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent framed Iran's collection of transit fees through the strait as the "Iranian military's latest attempt to extort global maritime trade" and "proof" that Tehran is "desperate for cash" [3][4]. The Treasury Department sanctioned the entity Iran created to collect the fees and warned that ships paying them could face sanctions [3]. Baqaei countered that Iran was providing "navigational services" and would continue to manage traffic through the waterway [3].
The military exchange sent immediate shockwaves through energy markets. Brent crude rose 3.75 percent to $97.83 a barrel [15], while RFI reported a 2.94 percent increase to $97.06 [11]. Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency, said the world was "in the midst of the largest energy security crisis the world has ever faced" and predicted it would "reshape investment strategies globally" [7]. European Central Bank chief economist Philip Lane warned that "even if the initial energy shock starts to reverse, the second round effects will be with us for a while" [7]. The pain extended well beyond Europe: analysts in India warned oil could reach $80–100 per barrel with severe consequences for crude imports from Iraq and Saudi Arabia [29], while a Pakistani assessment projected inflation could exceed 7 percent if global oil hit $130 a barrel [30]. Vietnamese economic reporting noted Brent had already surged from roughly $72 before the war to nearly $120 at its peak [33].
The conflict continued to draw in regional actors. Kuwait's military announced it was intercepting hostile missiles and drones, with alarms sounding across the country [1][12][15]. Al Jazeera's Arabic service reported that Iranian missile and drone attacks had struck Kuwait International Airport, damaging its radar system [23]. Saudi Arabia maneuvered to avoid being pulled into direct confrontation, responding to reports that Gulf states had opened airspace to US forces [24]. The Israel Defense Forces announced strikes on Hezbollah infrastructure in the Lebanese city of Tyre [4][7], while Hezbollah launched operations against Israeli positions across southern Lebanon and northern Israel [13].
Beyond the immediate theater, a CSIS analysis found that the 38-day US bombing campaign had depleted critical munitions stockpiles — including Tomahawk missiles and Patriot interceptors — that will take at least three years to replenish, creating what the think tank called a "window of vulnerability" for a potential Western Pacific conflict over Taiwan [6][34]. Pentagon chief spokesman Sean Parnell pushed back, stating the military "tiene todo lo que necesita para ejecutar (operaciones) en el momento y el lugar que elija el presidente" (has everything it needs to execute operations at the time and place the president chooses) [6].
The US Senate rejected a Democratic-led War Powers resolution 47–50, with only a handful of Republican defectors including Rand Paul and Susan Collins voting in favor, effectively allowing the president to continue hostilities without explicit congressional authorization [26]. A Turkish security analyst, Coşkun Başbuğ, offered a different lens, arguing that a "şeytan üçgeni" (devil's triangle) of hardline factions within the US, Iran, and Israel was actively sabotaging diplomatic progress, while nationalist factions in Washington and Tehran had moved talks underground [8].
European analysts assessed that the Iranian regime had emerged politically strengthened from the conflict despite economic devastation. Der Spiegel described the regime's survival of a US-Israeli military campaign as a form of political "risk management" [5]. Historian Jonathan Piron of the Research and Information Group on Peace and Security told RFI that the situation amounted to "une impasse" (a stalemate), with nothing resolved in the Middle East [17]. Inside Iran, the HRANA News Agency had documented at least 1,351 cumulative civilian deaths including 207 children as of the 17th day of strikes, with 21 killed in that 24-hour period — figures that contradict both the US framing of precision strikes and Iran's official claims of no damage [22].
EU top diplomat Kaja Kallas warned that the continuation of the war was "not in anybody's interest" [7]. No further rounds of formal negotiations have been announced, and the ceasefire — already frayed — faces what Trump himself described as being "on the verge of collapse" [25].