The United States has launched a series of strikes on Iran in response to the Iranian targeting of vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.
These are the most severe violations yet of the Memorandum of Understanding that came into effect on June 17, and may signal an end to the truce.
For the first time since the initial ceasefire on April 8, US President Donald Trump has definitively stated the ceasefire is over.
These escalating tensions suggest the ceasefire will not turn into a permanent peace. The US is being drawn into a long war with Iran, against its will.
Fighting for control
The key sticking point that has driven the latest round of strikes is Iran’s determination to impose control over the Strait of Hormuz.
The Memorandum of Understanding stated Iran would use its “best efforts” to ensure safe passage of commercial vessels through the strait with no charge for 60 days.
However, tensions immediately spiked over ships using the “Omani route” through the strait. This is a US-endorsed maritime corridor that hugs the coast of Oman and involves international coordination.
Iran wants vessels to use a second route that passes along the Iranian coast and is closely monitored and controlled by Iran.
The strait is too wide for Iran to maintain control over both routes without the use, or threatened use, of force.
Iran has shown it is willing to use live fire to deter vessels from sailing the Omani route.
A battle of different strengths
One reason it has been so hard for the ceasefire to hold is that US and Iran have different strengths. Neither sees themselves as having surrendered.
The US is militarily strong, with overwhelming military capability.
But it has weak political resolve. It does not want to stay in this war or put boots on the ground in Iran. The US does not want to expend its military arsenal in a long war, or focus its global military efforts on the Iranian regime.
So, while the US has the military capability, it is highly unlikely to force regime change in Iran or forcibly open the Strait of Hormuz.
The Iranian regime’s greatest strength is its political resolve. It is determined to survive.
Since key political leaders were killed at the start of this war, the regime has become even more hardline and militaristic. The current regime is ideological, savvy and ruthless.
Iran is determined to show the US and the region that it is in control and will not back down. It is willing to bear staggering economic and security costs to achieve this aim.
Iran’s resolve is shown in its willingness to threaten civilian vessels in the strait with light, cost-effective drones and attack boats.
The Iranian regime’s main weakness is economic. Iran has suffered massive economic and military damage as a result of this war. It could not weather another long US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and sustained US air strikes on infrastructure and military targets.
The power of domestic politics
The very different domestic landscapes in the US and Iran are driving both parties closer to a breakdown of the ceasefire.
In Iran, as noted, the war has led to a hardened regime with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) more firmly in control of political power. Iranian leaders who even talk to US counterparts, let alone make concessions, may risk being branded political traitors by some IRGC elements.
As history has shown with the assassinations of President Anwar Sadat in Egypt in 1981 and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in Israel in 1995, leaders can put their own life on the line if they make agreements with counterparts considered sworn enemies by hardliners in their own country.
This drives Iran to focus on controlling the Strait of Hormuz and appearing uncompromising, rather than capitulating to enjoy the economic benefits of sanctions relief and the promised US$300 billion reconstruction fund.
Trump, on the other hand, does not want to return to full-scale war due to a lack of domestic support.
However, Trump is also influenced by those in the US who do not want to see the US walk away from the war with Iran with no agreement on the nuclear issues, and Iran in full control of the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump expects Iran to cooperate with the Memorandum of Understanding due to its promised economic benefits. But he has vastly underestimated Iran’s determination to assert dominance over the strait and control in the region.
What will happen from here?
Trump’s reticence for full-scale escalation means we are unlikely to return to the war of February 28.
Iran’s determination to show control means we are also not likely to see the ceasefire hold or a substantial peace agreement forthcoming.
The most likely scenario is we will return to the status quo from the first ceasefire of April 8 until June 17. This was a precarious truce, below the threshold of all-out war, but also not a substantive peace.
Tit-for-tat strikes will continue over coming months. The Strait of Hormuz will remain partially closed with security uncertain.
As I have previously noted, this is more akin to a frozen conflict than a full ceasefire or a return to full-scale war.
Jessica Genauer, Academic Director, School of Public Policy and Government, UNSW Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.