Trump Escalates Iran War As US Intensifies Strikes With No End In Sight

President Donald Trump has thrown down the gauntlet in Iran as the U.S. military doubles down on its air campaign and intensifies attacks on civilian infrastructure.

The newest wave of airstrikes began early on Friday and included attacks on energy sites, bridges, shipping facilities and airports, according to the Associated Press (AP) and Reuters. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) announced the new wave of strikes in a Friday press release, where it said that the strikes were attacking “Iranian military targets.”

“U.S. forces, including fighter jets, aerial drones, and warships, launched precision munitions that hit dozens of Iranian military targets such as coastal surveillance and air defense sites, military logistics infrastructure, and maritime capabilities,” CENTCOM said in its press release. “This was the sixth consecutive night of U.S. strikes against Iran.”

U.S. Naval Forces Central Command and the Pentagon referred to CENTCOM. CENTCOM referred to its press release.

Since the U.S.-Iran ceasefire began collapsing on July 7, Iran has launched attacks into or against at least six clearly documented countries: Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, Oman, Syria and Iraq, according to reporting by multiple outlets.

The Iranian strikes in Kuwait hit a desalination plant, AP reported. Desalination plants are a key source of fresh water for nations in the Persian Gulf that lack a stable freshwater supply.

Vice President JD Vance signaled that the Trump administration is still open to negotiations during an interview on the “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast on Wednesday.

“As the world knows, President Trump’s first preference is always peace and diplomacy. Unfortunately, Iran has chosen the path of violence – and they are reaping the consequences of that decision,” a U.S. official close to the White House told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Thanks to the unmatched might of the U.S. military, we can hit Iran anytime, anywhere, and any place. The United States will not stand idly by while Iran commits acts of international terrorism, and President Trump will never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

“I find it very unlikely that this bombing campaign will soften Iran’s position; rather, the greater likelihood is that it will harden it,” Trita Parsi, the executive vice president at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told the DCNF. “Essentially, the White House believes military action will compel Tehran to give up its leverage – the Strait. In reality, the more the U.S. bombs Iran to deprive Iran of control over the Strait, the more it convinces Iran that it must control the Strait to defeat American military plans.”

Parsi said that this recent escalation will likely make a return to negotiations much harder.

“It is going to be very difficult to return to diplomacy, so even if a solution is available, it does not mean that it will be pursued,” Parsi told the DCNF.

Iran’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations, the Embassy of Qatar, the Embassy of Kuwait and the Embassy of Bahrain did not respond to a request for comment.

A Broken Deal

These strikes come after the U.S. and Iranian governments agreed on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to buy time for further negotiations. The MOU was intended to restart the flow of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz; however, a scenario of two separate shipping lanes quickly developed, one to the North with the permission of Iran and one to the South that the U.S. calls for ships to use, AP reported on June 15.

“The reason for the recent strikes over the course of the last several days is because Iran violated the memorandum of understanding that we struck with them,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a press conference on Thursday. “Specifically in the Memorandum of Understanding that they signed, they were not to fire on commercial vessels moving through the Strait of Hormuz, and unfortunately, they have made the tragic decision for them to do that.”

“From Tehran’s perspective, the MOU was supposed to provide time to negotiate a final arrangement in the Strait. In the meantime, they interpret Paragraph 5 as providing them with the responsibility for safe passage through the Strait, which requires all ships to coordinate with Tehran before transiting,” Parsi told the DCNF. “Iran would neither charge any tolls nor stop any ships, as long as they coordinated with Iran. As a result, they see Washington’s attempt to use the MOU to establish a southern channel in the Strait that does not have to coordinate with Iran as an attempt to render the MOU negotiations meaningless and instead wrest the Strait out of Iran’s hands.”

Paragraph five of the MOU does not mention the United States, according to the full MOU text posted by Axios on June 17. It implies that the Islamic Republic of Iran would be responsible for the safe passage of vessels.

“Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman, and vice versa,” paragraph five of the MOU states, according Axios. “The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles and de-mining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz, in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states, in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.”

The Iranians struck multiple ships on July 7, including the Qatari oil tanker Al Rekayyat, after the U.S. began directing ships to use the South shipping lane.

“The State of Qatar expressed its strong condemnation and denunciation of the targeting of the Qatari tanker Al Rekayyat while it was transiting near the Strait of Hormuz, stressing that this attack amounts to a grave violation of the safety of international navigation, a direct threat to global energy supply security, and a clear and flagrant breach of international law,” the Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in an X post on July 7.

After the Iranians began striking ships in the South shipping lane, shipping companies have been reluctant to use the Southern route, Reuters reported on Wednesday.

Military Targets?

Although CENTCOM said the strikes were directed against military targets, the expansion of attacks to bridges, port facilities and electrical infrastructure raises questions about whether the campaign complies with the law of armed conflict.

Some of the recent U.S. airstrikes targeted highway and railway bridges near Bandar Khamir, a city close to Iran’s main port, Bandar Abbas, AP reported.

One expert laid out to the DCNF that three specific circumstances must be met for a target to be justifiable under international law.

“There’s a pretty common fallacy that if something is capable of having a military function as well as a civilian function, that that makes it a legitimate target,” Gabor Rona, a professor of practice at Cardozo Law School, told the DCNF. “That’s not the test … but rather, is it actually being used in a way that effectively supports military operations?”

“There’s a second step, and that deals with what’s called the principle of proportionality … If an attack on even something that is being used for military purposes creates civilian harm that is clearly in excess, or is anticipated to create civilian harm clearly, in excess to any military value gained, that too makes the attack a violation of the laws of armed conflict of the Geneva Conventions,” Rona told the DCNF.

Rona said that even if these two criteria are met, civilian harm must still be minimized.

“There is one more hurdle that has to be met in order for something to be targetable,” Rona told the DCNF. “So even if the harm is not disproportionate to civilians, even if the object is being directly used for military purposes by the enemy, there is still an obligation on the part of the attacking party to take feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm.”

Another expert told the DCNF that he believes the targets are valid; however, Trump’s rhetoric understandably would make people skeptical of the strikes.

“I still remain confident in the integrity of the operational level decision makers that these targets were vetted and fall within the category of military objective, and that we’ve taken feasible precautions,” Texas Tech University School of Law George R. Killam Jr. Director of the Center for Military Law and Policy, Geoffrey Corn, told the DCNF.

“The problem is the bombast and the rhetoric that the president continues to engage in, and the suggestion repeated many times that this may be a mechanism or a method of punishing the Iranian regime, and that’s not a definite military advantage,” Corn told the DCNF. “So it’s just the language and the bombast that comes out of the White House, in my humble opinion, has undermined the normal presumption that when we’re attacking a target, there was a credible and good faith assessment of a military objective.”

Iran has a population of 92.4 million people, according to the United Nations Population Fund.

Iran is a net importer of staple foods, including grain and cooking oil, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. This leaves Iran particularly susceptible to attacks targeting its critical shipping infrastructure.

Transportation and electrical infrastructure can constitute lawful military objectives when they effectively contribute to military operations and their destruction offers a definite military advantage. However, international humanitarian law prohibits attacks directed against civilian objects, attacks expected to cause excessive civilian harm and operations undertaken for the specific purpose of depriving civilians of food or water.

A Financial War Within

A significant amount of oil was able to slip through the Strait of Hormuz after the MOU was signed, Max Meizlish, a former sanctions enforcement officer and a sanctions licensing officer at the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, told the DCNF.

“It’s open if people want to go through it. We’re not opening it for Iran,” Trump said during a Fox News interview on Tuesday. “That’s the only one it’s closed for… Now, a lot of things have happened in the last few months—pipelines are being built. We’re coming up with great alternatives, including Texas, including Alaska.”

“The renewed blockade can significantly constrain Iran’s oil revenue, as it did during its initial implementation, but its effectiveness will also depend on what happens beyond the blockade line,” Meizlish told the DCNF. “Millions of barrels of Iranian oil are already at sea, including cargoes near longstanding ship-to-ship transfer sites off Malaysia that are likely seeking buyers in China. Washington must be prepared to interdict those vessels and pursue the lawful seizure of their cargoes, despite the legal complexities involved. Otherwise, Iran will continue monetizing oil that escaped the blockade.”

Meizlish even suggested that the U.S. Treasury should take financial action against Hong Kong and the United Arab Emirates if they do not provide information on Iranian sanctions evasion.

“Treasury also needs to move beyond just sanctioning individual vessels, traders, and front companies and begin imposing costs on the jurisdictions that enable systemic sanctions evasion,” Meizlish told the DCNF. “Treasury should use Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act to propose greater scrutiny of transactions involving companies in Hong Kong and the UAE, two of the most important hubs for Iran’s shadow banking networks, that resemble established typologies of Iranian sanctions evasion. If these jurisdictions fail to quickly reform and provide valuable financial intelligence to Treasury, more aggressive measures such as cutting off correspondent bank access could be considered.”

One expert previously warned the DCNF that the Iran War could soon push the U.S. military and economy far past what is sustainable.

“The combination of weapons depletion and the looming shortage of diesel and aviation fuel, which will create significant domestic economic and political turmoil, will force him to curtail what he [Trump] is currently doing,” former CIA analyst Larry Johnson previously told the DCNF.