The United States and Iran have exchanged fresh attacks for a second consecutive night, deepening one of the most serious escalations in hostilities since a fragile cease-fire took hold in April and raising new doubts about the future of negotiations between Washington and Tehran.
Iran claimed on June 11 that it had fully closed the Strait of Hormuz following overnight US strikes on targets in the country, warning that any vessel attempting to transit the strategic waterway would be attacked.
Iranian state media later reported that two ships had come under fire.
US Central Command (CENTCOM) disputed those claims, saying commercial shipping continued to move through the crucial waterway, which usually accounts for one fifth of global oil and gas supplies.
The latest escalation began with a new round of US strikes targeting Iranian military surveillance capabilities, communications systems, intelligence facilities, and air-defense positions that Washington said posed threats to American forces and international shipping.
"The strikes are in response to Iran's unwarranted and continued aggression. U.S. forces remain vigilant, lethal, and ready," CENTCOM said in a post on X late on June 10.
Iran responded by launching missile and drone attacks against US-linked targets in Bahrain and Kuwait.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps said it had targeted 18 sites, including Kuwait's Ali Al Salem and Ahmed Al Jaber air bases and Bahrain's Sheikh Isa Air Base.
Bahrain activated air raid sirens and urged residents to seek shelter, while Kuwait said its air defenses had engaged incoming threats before later reopening airspace that had been temporarily closed as a precaution.
The latest exchanges come after US strikes earlier this week on Iranian radar, air defense, and command systems following the loss of a US Apache helicopter near the Strait of Hormuz -- an incident US President Donald Trump has blamed on Iran.
Trump has also signaled that additional military action remains possible.
"We were really close to a deal, but they keep tapping us along, they keep playing us for suckers," Trump told reporters on June 10, while Fox News reported that he warned the United States could intensify military operations unless Tehran agreed to a framework settlement.
The renewed fighting has heightened concerns about regional stability, energy supplies, and the viability of diplomatic efforts that have continued despite repeated violations of the April cease-fire.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for an immediate halt to hostilities, warning that the Middle East was being drawn "deeper into crisis."
"This week has brought wider attacks and further deterioration where the cease-fire is more like a lesser-fire," Guterres said on X on June 11. "No more attacks. No more excuses."
Analysts say the latest military exchanges reflect a US strategy that seeks to combine military pressure with ongoing diplomacy rather than replacing negotiations altogether.
Jason Brodsky, policy director at United Against Nuclear Iran, argues that the Trump administration has gone further by pairing military action with intensified economic pressure.
"The marrying of significant economic and military pressure against Iran's regime is a distinct feature of the Trump administration's approach," Brodsky told RFE/RL.
According to Brodsky, the latest operation follows a familiar pattern in Trump's dealings with Tehran.
"It's another chapter of the same coercive diplomatic dance the Trump administration has employed since 2025: the president lays out his terms, sometimes sets a deadline, if Tehran taps him along and stalls, the president strikes," he said. "This pattern will continue until there is a satisfactory outcome for the Trump administration."
Max Meizlish, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Center on Economic and Financial Power, said Washington appears intent on forcing a strategic decision in Tehran.
"President Trump is trying to force Iran to make a choice: agree to a deal quickly or face more military pressure," Meizlish said.
However, he cautioned that even a negotiated agreement would not necessarily eliminate the underlying challenge posed by Iran's leadership.
"Even if Tehran signs an agreement, the same regime will remain in power with every incentive to rebuild, rearm, and lean more heavily on its terrorist proxies once the immediate pressure passes," he said.
For that reason, Meizlish argued, Washington should broaden its campaign beyond military operations.
"That is why Washington should pair renewed military pressure with a harder campaign against the Chinese networks that keep Iran's war machine funded, because any deal that leaves those financial channels intact will give Tehran the means to recover and threaten the region again," he said.
Meanwhile, diplomatic contacts have continued despite the uptick in hostilities, with reports that Qatari mediators traveled to Tehran after consultations with Washington in an effort to advance negotiations.
The latest exchanges, however, have raised fresh questions about whether diplomacy can keep pace with a conflict that is increasingly being shaped by military action.
