As Pakistani mediation efforts moved to extend the ceasefire between the United States and Iran for another 60 days, Washington launched strikes on targets in Bandar Abbas, while Tehran responded by firing a ballistic missile towards a site in Kuwait.
The exchange came amid reports that a preliminary agreement had already been reached and was awaiting approval from US President Donald Trump, raising a critical question: are the two sides preparing for another round of conflict, or are these carefully calibrated military actions designed to strengthen their positions in fragile negotiations?
What Happened on the Ground?
The latest developments unfolded through a series of reciprocal actions.
According to Iran’s Tasnim News Agency, the incident began with a maritime confrontation after the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps fired warning shots towards four vessels and a US oil tanker that allegedly attempted to pass through the strait without coordination with Iranian authorities.
The United States then responded directly. US Central Command announced that it had shot down five Iranian drones and targeted a ground control station in Bandar Abbas that was reportedly preparing to launch a sixth drone.
Following the US strike, the Revolutionary Guard announced that it had targeted a military base in Kuwait.
Kuwaiti authorities later confirmed that the country’s air defences intercepted a ballistic missile, while Kuwait’s Foreign Ministry described the attack as a dangerous escalation.
Escalation or Calculated Signalling?
Official statements from both sides have framed the strikes differently, although the underlying objective appears similar.
Washington has described its actions as measured and purely defensive operations intended to preserve the ceasefire. Tehran, meanwhile, has characterised its strikes as a “strong warning” and an act of “defending sovereignty”.
Nour Eddine Al-Daghir, Al Jazeera’s bureau chief in Tehran, summarised the situation by noting that both parties appear to agree that what is taking place does not constitute a violation of the ceasefire but rather an exercise of self-defence within its broader framework.
Al-Daghir argued that both capitals have adopted this legal justification because they share an interest in preserving the political momentum behind the ongoing Pakistan-mediated negotiations, which have reportedly reached an advanced stage.
The military actions also coincide with Trump’s efforts to reinforce the perception that Tehran is negotiating under pressure rather than from a position of equality. This comes amid growing criticism from Republican circles over any potential financial concessions to Iran, according to Al Jazeera correspondent Mohammed Al Ahmad in Washington.
On the Iranian side, the missile launched towards Kuwait coincided with statements by Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, who warned of what he described as an enemy plan to create divisions in an attempt to compensate for military setbacks.
The Lebanese Front
Concerns over regional developments are not limited to Iran and the Gulf.
Lebanon continues to experience repeated Israeli attacks, the latest of which took place on Thursday in the vicinity of Beirut.
Al-Daghir pointed to the Lebanese front as being directly linked to the outcome of the negotiations, stating that it remains a major concern for Tehran.
“The Lebanese front is a significant concern for Iran. It does not want the war to end without the Lebanese front being incorporated into any broader arrangement,” he said.
The Future of the Agreement
Reuters reported on Thursday that the two sides had reached a preliminary agreement to extend the ceasefire by 60 days and that the proposal was awaiting Trump’s approval.
However, Trump struck a more cautious tone earlier in the week.
“I’m not satisfied,” he said on Wednesday, adding: “Either it happens, or we will have to settle the matter.”
Trump also rejected the release of frozen Iranian assets, estimated at $24 billion by Iran’s ISNA news agency.
“We are not giving them any money back until they improve their behaviour,” he stated.
From Washington, Al Jazeera correspondent Mohammed Al Ahmad reported growing domestic opposition to any settlement.
“After details of the agreement began emerging through media leaks, particularly regarding frozen Iranian assets, criticism intensified, including from within Republican ranks. This revived comparisons to the 2015 Obama-era agreement,” he said.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also stated during a government meeting that “other options remain on the president’s table”.
Conclusion
For now, Washington and Tehran appear to be using controlled escalation beneath the umbrella of the ceasefire to gain leverage in negotiations while avoiding a return to full-scale war.
The ceasefire, which has held for more than seven weeks, remains in place. However, any extension depends on a political decision that has yet to be finalised in Washington, amid domestic pressure and Israeli opposition.
While the United States presents its strikes as defensive and Iran describes its actions as warnings, the margin for error remains narrow. A single missile that escapes interception could quickly transform a 60-day truce into a short-lived pause in hostilities.
