Iran ended days of relative calm in the Middle East after launching what the United States called a “surprise” attack in a notable change in its fighting pattern.
Rather than respond to a new American attack, the Iranian government chose to resume fighting on its own, demonstrating a growing willingness to use military force and determine the course of the war on its own terms.
This sets the stage for a new escalation. “We’re going to beat the shit out of them,” US President Donald Trump told Fox News on Wednesday morning. “We’re going to hit them hard. They’re going to get hit.”
The threat did not surprise the Iranian government, which launched the missile knowing it could bring the U.S. bombers home.
Trump blamed last week’s suspension on a request from Iran and said he wanted dialogue because “they have been very responsive to us.” The Iranian government did not publicly commit to the latest suspension, but a senior Iranian official said: “Our military has also decided not to take military action.”
That makes Iran’s decision to resume shelling even more significant.
Hours after publicly signaling that it matched U.S. restraint, Tehran appears to have decided that targeting U.S. forces and increasing pressure was worth the risk of resuming nightly artillery bombardment.
“Something seems to have fundamentally changed in Iran’s approach, especially its willingness to launch an attack if it considers it the only viable option,” Hamid Reza Azizi, a researcher at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, wrote in X magazine.
The Iranian attack came shortly after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Trump in Washington, DC. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the meeting as “one of the best conversations” between the two countries after increasing friction between the two countries. Hours before the meeting, Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz said Israel wanted to attack Iran’s energy infrastructure but was prevented by the Trump administration.
“This attack appears to have been a signal related to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to the White House earlier in the day,” Azizi wrote. “This suggests that Iran’s military strategy may have changed and that the Iranian government is prepared to launch a pre-emptive strike if it senses signs of an imminent threat.”
Shortly after the attack in Jordan, U.S. and Saudi forces launched a joint attack on Iranian-backed militias in Iraq. U.S. Central Command framed the Iraq operation not as retaliation for the attack on Jordan, but as a response to more than 30 drone strikes against U.S. forces and Saudi energy infrastructure in the past 72 hours.
The overnight escalation showed how widespread the war was. Saudi Arabia, long wary of becoming directly involved in the conflict, is becoming more involved in the face of three-pronged threats: the Houthis in Yemen, Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, and Iran itself.
“The central challenge facing Washington and its Gulf states is that neither Iran nor its regional allies appear willing to back down from what they now define as their core strategic objectives,” Danny Sitrinowitz, a senior fellow at the Israel National Security Institute and former head of Israel’s military intelligence agency’s Iran bureau, wrote on X.
“While the Iranian government continues to assert its influence over the Strait of Hormuz, the Houthis have made it clear that they will not end their operations unless the Saudi-led (blockade) is lifted.”
In an interview on Iranian state television published hours before the attack in Jordan, Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Ghalibabadi stated perhaps one of the clearest Iranian government positions to date. He suggested that although Iran had ceased shelling, it would not hesitate to resume hostilities if its sovereignty claims in the Strait of Hormuz were challenged.
The deputy foreign minister said Iran could not be considered victorious if the strait returned to its pre-war status. This waterway was central to the nation’s security and served as a “means of defence.”
When an interviewer asked why Tehran risked restarting the war by attacking a merchant ship despite a working ceasefire, Ghalibabadi said Iran views Oman and the United States’ efforts to establish rival shipping routes through the strait as red lines that should not be crossed. He argued that allowing the route would render Iran’s claims to “effective exercise of sovereignty” over the waterway “nothing more than an illusion.”
“In simplistic terms, one might ask why Iran would attack three commercial ships with missiles just because they turned off their GPS, potentially restarting the war,” he said. “However, a look behind the scenes shows that the arrangements applied to the Strait of Hormuz will have long-term implications for the security of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
From Tehran’s perspective, Washington’s pause in strikes against Iran reflects “strategic weakness rather than restraint,” Citrinovic wrote. This perception risks accelerating a cycle in which Iran escalates to impose greater costs while both sides withdraw for fear of losing credibility.
The United States and its partners therefore face a choice between complying with some of Iran’s demands or accepting the prospect of a protracted conflict marked by escalating attacks on shipping, energy infrastructure, and trade routes, he argued.
Aida Karimi, Eyad Kurdi, Dana Qarni, Mohamed Tawfik and Tal Shareef contributed to this report.
