Iran's state television reported early this morning (June 28) local time that multiple explosions were heard in the southern region of Sirik. Sources said the sound was caused by "several projectiles hitting a communications tower." Additionally, "several other projectiles" struck Iran's largest island, Qeshm Island.
The U.S. Central Command released a statement on social media platforms stating that, under orders from President Trump, U.S. forces carried out a new round of strikes against multiple targets inside Iran to respond to "Iran's ongoing aggressive actions against commercial shipping." The targeted assets included Iran’s military surveillance infrastructure, communication systems, air defense positions, drone storage facilities, and mine-laying capabilities.
Multiple reports indicate that the two rounds of military confrontations between the U.S. and Iran within 48 hours represent a "controlled escalation" game centered around navigation rules in the Strait of Hormuz.
The immediate trigger for this military friction was the attack on a merchant vessel, but the deeper root lies in the fundamental disagreement between both sides over strait passage regulations. The International Maritime Organization recommends two routes: a southern route near the Omani coast and a northern route near Iran. Iran recently issued a notice requiring all passing vessels to use the northern route approved by Iran, otherwise no security guarantees will be provided. The Singapore-flagged cargo ship that was attacked earlier had been sailing along the southern route near Oman’s coast—precisely why it became a target of Iranian drones. The U.S. military action this time, ostensibly a "strong response to the attack on commercial ships," is actually aimed at countering Iran’s unilateral attempt to alter strait navigation rules, in order to uphold America’s advocated principle of global freedom of navigation.
The U.S. strategy is to "use limited military action to draw red lines without overturning the table." The U.S. military confined its strike scope precisely to coastal military infrastructure—such as missile/drone storage facilities, radar installations, communication systems, and air defense positions—while deliberately avoiding deep inland nuclear facilities or core economic targets. This "limited retaliatory strike" aims to establish military deterrence, compel Iran back to the negotiating table, while signaling to the outside world that the U.S. will not abandon the diplomatic framework or relapse into full-scale war over a single incident.
Facing cross-border attacks by U.S. forces, Iran adopted a strategy combining "rapid display of cards" with "tactical silence." On one hand, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps swiftly announced plans to strike U.S. military bases across the Middle East, aiming to maintain its deterrence capability and demonstrate a tough stance domestically. On the other hand, Iran’s Foreign Ministry strongly condemned the U.S. for openly violating the prior understanding memorandum reached between the two sides. Notably, Iran has so far issued no specific response to the second round of deeper U.S. strikes. This "silence" itself constitutes a strategic move—allowing Iran to first assess the damage before deciding the intensity of its next retaliation.
This latest exchange once again exposes the ambiguity and fragility of the U.S.-Iran understanding memorandum. Despite rising tensions, both sides are currently still operating at the tactical level—engaging in "borderline provocation" without yet triggering large-scale conflict. The key variable moving forward hinges on the technical talks scheduled for June 30 in Switzerland. If the talks proceed as planned, it indicates both sides still have willingness to resolve differences over strait navigation implementation through diplomacy. However, if the talks are interrupted or one side fails to attend, it would signal that the situation is sliding toward a more dangerous and uncontrollable phase.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1869196071117824/
Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author.