Iran and U.S. Exchange Fire, Further Straining Ceasefire

(Apu Gomes/Getty Images)

People wave Iranian pre-1979 Islamic Revolution and American flags while members of the Iranian community celebrate in front of the Federal Building on March 1, in Los Angeles.

The latest U.S.-Iran exchange is more likely to delay diplomacy than end the ceasefire outright, but repeated clashes around the Strait of Hormuz, Gulf targets and retaliatory strikes would raise the risk of a return to wider hostilities. On May 8, the Emirati Ministry of Defense stated that the country's air defenses had intercepted missile and drone attacks from Iran. The attacks came a day after the United States and Iran exchanged fire in the Strait of Hormuz, with Iran launching missiles and drones at three U.S. naval vessels and the United States responding with strikes on Iranian launch sites and small boats. U.S. Central Command said the Iranian launches had been intercepted and caused no damage to U.S. assets, while the full extent of damage from the U.S. strikes against Iran remains unclear. U.S. President Donald Trump downplayed the exchange as "just a love tap" in comments to ABC News. However, he later warned on Truth Social that the United States would strike Iran "a lot harder" if Tehran did not sign a deal quickly, adding that U.S. forces had sunk "numerous small boats" in response to Iranian fire on U.S. destroyers transiting the strait. These incidents followed Trump's May 7 decision to pull back the Navy-led operation "Project Freedom" to facilitate commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz while keeping the U.S. blockade on Iranian vessels in place. The decision leaves the strait as the main flashpoint even as Washington and Tehran continue negotiations.

The Wall Street Journal reported on May 7 that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait had initially restricted U.S. military access to their bases and airspace after Gulf concerns that Washington was not sufficiently protecting them from Iranian retaliation, particularly following Iran's attacks on the United Arab Emirates in retaliation for Operation "Project Freedom." They later reportedly reversed course and lifted those restrictions.

The exchanges of fire between both sides likely aimed at restoring deterrence, with Iran protecting its newly imposed navigation system in the strait and the United States reassuring Gulf partners after its initial reluctance to respond to Iranian attacks on the United Arab Emirates raised doubts about U.S. willingness to defend countries hosting U.S. forces. Both sides have in recent days accused each other of breaching the ceasefire. From Iran's perspective, the U.S. strikes were a violation of the ceasefire, which prompted Tehran to retaliate to re-establish deterrence and protect its newly imposed navigation system in the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, the new U.S. strikes were likely intended to restore deterrence after Iran tested the limits of the ceasefire and the U.S.-led effort to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Earlier this week, Iran attacked the United Arab Emirates in response to what Iranian state media described as U.S. "military adventurism" after Washington launched "Project Freedom," an operation Iran considered another breach of the ceasefire. The lack of an immediate U.S. military response likely created pressure on Washington to demonstrate that additional Iranian attacks on Gulf partners, commercial shipping or U.S.-supported maritime operations would not go unanswered. Gulf states were reportedly angered that Washington initially did not defend them and restricted the use of U.S. bases in the Gulf for retaliatory operations. The subsequent reversal of those restrictions likely contributed to Washington's decision to strike, allowing the United States to reassure Gulf partners, protect U.S. vessels and signal to Iran that it cannot continue using the ceasefire to impose its own access regime over the strait without facing military costs.

Iran has recently established a new system of authority in the Persian Gulf to vet and regulate vessels transiting through the Strait of Hormuz, with ships expected to receive transit rules and instructions and, in some cases, face proposed fees or tolls. Iran has also released a map marking an area it claims to control in and around the strait, while Iranian officials have warned that vessels cannot move oil through Hormuz without Tehran's permission.

The latest U.S.-Iran exchange is unlikely to immediately collapse the ceasefire, but it will risk Tehran pausing or hardening negotiations and increase the risk that repeated maritime, Gulf and retaliatory incidents eventually push both sides back into wider hostilities. The ongoing exchange of attacks makes it more likely that Tehran will temporarily halt talks or harden its position around the emerging framework deal. In recent days, U.S. officials said that Washington and Tehran were close to an arrangement that would suspend the war and open a 30-day negotiation period focused on Iran's nuclear program and increased shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. However, Iran's tolerance for U.S. and especially Emirati military action during the ceasefire remains low, as demonstrated by its attacks on the United Arab Emirates on May 8. Even if both Washington and Tehran remain interested in preserving a negotiation track, Iranian sources have indicated that parts of the proposed framework are unacceptable. This elevates the risk of Tehran slow-walking talks, pausing engagement with mediators or refusing additional concessions. Meanwhile, the underlying military dynamics around the Strait of Hormuz remain unresolved. The blockades are still in place, and further incidents and tit-for-tat exchanges are likely if U.S.-supported vessels try to bypass Iranian restrictions, if the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps continues harassing commercial shipping or if Iran targets the United Arab Emirates and prompts further U.S. retaliation. This cycle will strain the ceasefire and increase the likelihood that it eventually collapses, particularly if negotiations remain stalled for an extended period.

Iranian officials have repeatedly accused the United States and Israel of using diplomacy as cover to prepare or conduct military operations, including Israel's strikes on Iran last June and the joint U.S.-Israeli strikes that opened the current conflict on Feb. 28. The latest exchange is likely to reinforce that perception inside Iranian political circles, where some officials reportedly already view negotiations as a diversion designed to buy Washington time for a wider escalation.
Alternatively, the latest exchange could remain a contained deterrence episode if both Washington and Tehran prioritize reaching an agreement. Both sides may calculate that they have done enough to preserve credibility without needing to collapse talks: Iran can claim it responded to U.S. pressure and defended its claimed navigation system in Hormuz, while Trump can claim the United States punished Iranian attacks and restored deterrence. This creates space for both sides to "call it a day" militarily and return to negotiations, especially if mediators can frame the exchange as limited retaliation rather than a formal resumption of war.