The latest military tit-for-tat between the United States and Iran appears to have been driven by deepening disagreements over the implementation of last month's ceasefire agreement, with competing interpretations of shipping rights through the Strait of Hormuz emerging as a key flashpoint.
The two sides exchanged attacks on Wednesday and Thursday after the US launched strikes on Iranian targets and Tehran responded by targeting what it said were US military bases in the Gulf, notably in Bahrain, Qatar, and Kuwait.
US President Donald Trump later declared the ceasefire outlined in the 17 June memorandum of understanding "over", while Iranian officials accused Washington of trying to impose unilateral arrangements that violated the agreement.
According to CBS News , the dispute centres on differing interpretations of the memorandum, particularly its provisions concerning the Strait of Hormuz.
Iranian government sources told the broadcaster that the latest US strikes constituted a "serious violation" of the agreement.
Tehran argues that commercial shipping through the strategic waterway should remain coordinated with Iran, while Washington maintains that vessels can transit without Iranian approval. CBS said Iranian officials view the issue as extending beyond freedom of navigation, seeing it instead as preserving Tehran's ability to use the strait as leverage in any future conflict. Iran fears the United States is attempting to establish a maritime corridor running close to Oman's coastline that bypasses Iranian oversight. The Strait of Hormuz The Strait of Hormuz has become one of the central issues threatening the ceasefire agreement, according to Axios , which reported on Thursday that ensuring uninterrupted commercial shipping has become a key priority for the Trump administration in order to stabilise global energy markets.
For Tehran, however, retaining influence over the strait has become a core objective in any longer-term settlement. Axios reported that Iranian officials accused Washington shortly after the agreement was signed of directing commercial vessels through a southern route near the Omani coast without Iranian consent.
US officials told the outlet that the White House now believes it has greater room to escalate because hundreds of oil tankers have successfully left the Gulf through that southern corridor in recent weeks, reducing concerns that renewed fighting would trigger an immediate spike in global oil prices.
A US official also told Axios that frustration had been growing among hardline factions within Iran's leadership, who believe the ceasefire has delivered few tangible benefits for Tehran.
According to the official, Iran has been unable to use the Strait of Hormuz as an effective pressure point while ships continue using the alternative route. Tehran has also failed to benefit from US sanctions exemptions on oil exports because financial institutions and foreign governments remain reluctant to engage with Iran.
The official added that frozen Iranian assets have not been released because Tehran has yet to implement the nuclear commitments required under the agreement.
The same official said the US-brokered framework agreement between Israel and Lebanon had also rendered the Lebanon-related provisions of the memorandum unnecessary, further fuelling dissatisfaction within parts of Iran's leadership. Axios reported that the White House was preparing for the possibility that the confrontation could develop into a prolonged exchange of fire lasting days or even weeks, depending largely on whether Iran continues targeting commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
The outlet quoted a US official as saying that what began as a campaign to weaken Iran's missile capabilities and dismantle the remnants of its nuclear programme had evolved into a broader confrontation over the world's most important energy shipping route. Dispute over the nuclear file CNN reported that Trump's decision to authorise another round of strikes on Wednesday evening was driven in part by his anger that the Strait of Hormuz had not been fully reopened and by Iran's attacks on commercial vessels while he was attending the NATO summit in Ankara.
A US official told the network that Trump was particularly frustrated by the timing of the attacks, which took place while he was meeting foreign leaders on the sidelines of the summit.
The official also said the president had grown increasingly impatient with the pace of negotiations, accusing Iran of deliberately delaying talks over its nuclear programme.
Speaking to reporters in Ankara, Trump accused Iran of lying about the negotiations, saying Iranian officials had agreed during talks not to pursue a nuclear weapon before later denying that the issue had even been discussed.
"Who is going to believe that we didn't discuss it?" Trump said. Iran's internal divisions Meanwhile, The New York Times reported that divisions within Iran's leadership have deepened over how to respond to the crisis.
Citing two Iranian officials familiar with internal discussions, the newspaper said disagreements over negotiations with Washington had been widening even before the latest US strikes, with recent events intensifying the split between officials who favour continued diplomacy and hardliners who reject any agreement with the United States.
The officials told the newspaper that Iran's leadership remained divided over whether to resume military confrontation or continue diplomatic engagement, with different factions blaming one another for the deteriorating situation.
They added that Iran would respond forcefully to any further attacks, echoing recent statements by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.