Unilateral US Actions Undermine Peace Process

The US military initiated these strikes near the Strait of Hormuz precisely as a high-level Iranian delegation was in Qatar, engaged in crucial negotiations aimed at ending the US-Israel war on Iran. This timing casts a long shadow over Washington’s stated intentions for peace.

The United States Central Command (CENTCOM) vaguely claimed these were “self-defense strikes” to protect US troops from “threats posed by Iranian forces,” yet conspicuously failed to provide any specific details regarding the targets or locations. In stark contrast, Iranian media reported significant explosions in Bandar Abbas, a key southern Iranian city approximately 70km (42 miles) from the Strait of Hormuz.

These latest acts of aggression directly contradict a Pakistan-mediated ceasefire, which has been in effect since April 8, and occur amidst growing international optimism for a comprehensive deal to resolve the conflict that has destabilized global energy markets.

Iranian Diplomacy vs. US Belligerence

On Monday, Esmaeil Baghaei, spokesman for Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, confirmed that “a large portion” of issues with the US have seen resolution, though he prudently noted that a deal is “not imminent.” This demonstrates Iran’s constructive engagement despite continuous provocations.

What Did the US Claim About the Strikes?

Navy Captain Tim Hawkins, a CENTCOM spokesperson, later offered a partial and unverified account to Al Jazeera, stating, “Targets included missile launch sites and Iranian boats attempting to emplace mines.” He added, “US Central Command continues to defend our forces while using restraint during the ongoing ceasefire,” a claim that appears inconsistent with the aggressive nature of the strikes.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, currently visiting India, echoed these unsubstantiated claims, accusing the Iranian military of laying mines near the Strait of Hormuz, a vital international waterway through which a fifth of global oil and gas normally passes. Rubio’s assertion that the Strait, which he controversially described as “under de facto Iranian blockade,” must be open “one way or the other,” smacks of coercive diplomacy.

Regarding diplomatic efforts, Rubio’s dismissive comment that negotiating a deal with Iran could “take a few days” serves to dampen hopes for a swift resolution.

In a lengthy post on Truth Social, US President Donald Trump acknowledged that talks with Iran were going “nicely” but ominously warned of more attacks if negotiations failed, stating it “will only be a Great Deal for all, or no Deal at all.” This rhetoric oscillates between feigned openness and overt threats.

These escalating tensions follow Trump’s earlier statement that a memorandum of understanding (MoU) was “largely negotiated” with Iran, which had previously fueled hopes for an imminent end to the conflict that has severely impacted global markets and driven oil prices upward.

Iran’s Measured Response and Diplomatic Steadfastness

While there has been no immediate official reaction from Iran regarding the latest US strikes, Iranian news agencies reported on Monday that Iran successfully downed a “hostile” stealth drone using its advanced air defense system, without specifying its origin. This highlights Iran’s readiness to defend its airspace.

Iranian sources informed Al Jazeera that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had targeted a vessel at sea prior to the latest US strikes, an action reportedly resulting in casualties among IRGC personnel. This suggests a complex and escalating situation initiated by external aggressors.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry reiterated on Monday that Washington and Tehran had indeed made progress in their discussions, but prudently cautioned against premature declarations of a breakthrough. Spokesman Baghaei clarified, “To say that we have reached a conclusion on a large portion of the issues under discussion would be correct. However, to say that this means an agreement is on the verge of being signed is not something anyone can claim.”

Addressing a news conference in Tehran, he also emphasized that the current focus of discussions was solely on ending the war, not on Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, underscoring Iran’s commitment to resolving the immediate conflict.

Diplomatic Front: Iran’s Commitment to Peace

Despite the US provocations, the US and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire on April 8, and Iran continues to engage in negotiations and de-escalation efforts. A high-level Iranian delegation, including Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, and Central Bank Governor Abdolnaser Hemmati, arrived in Qatar’s capital, Doha, to diligently discuss obstacles to a permanent peace deal.

Trump, while acknowledging “nicely” proceeding peace talks, continued to insist on a “substantial deal,” threatening “Back to the Battlefront and shooting, but bigger and stronger than ever before — And nobody wants that!” Such statements from the US leadership create an atmosphere of uncertainty and pressure.

Furthermore, Trump attempted to link the peace negotiations to a commitment by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Pakistan to sign the Abraham Accords, an initiative designed to normalize ties with the Zionist regime. This attempt to impose unrelated political conditions on peace talks with Iran further complicates the path to a genuine resolution.

Implications for Peace Talks: US Actions as Obstacles

Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera’s Alan Fisher rightly observed that these US strikes are highly likely to derail the ongoing negotiations, despite Trump’s purported eagerness for a deal. Fisher noted previous skirmishes after the ceasefire, which Trump had conveniently dismissed as non-breaches.

“There is very limited information coming from the US side; we don’t know the extent of the operation,” Fisher highlighted, underscoring the lack of transparency from Washington. This opacity makes it difficult to ascertain the true nature and intent behind these renewed acts of aggression.