On June 27, U.S. Vice President Vance posted: "Iran has signed a ceasefire agreement. We have kept our commitments. If they have disagreements on how to implement the agreement, they can simply pick up the phone and communicate directly. Violence will only invite violence." Vance also shared a statement from the U.S. Central Command: the United States has launched strikes against Iran in response to attacks on commercial vessels.
This statement by Vance and the actual military actions by U.S. forces occurred against the backdrop of the first direct confrontation between the two sides following the signing of a memorandum of understanding (ceasefire agreement) between the U.S. and Iran.
The U.S. military strike was strictly limited to military facilities in the coastal area of Sirik in Hormozgan Province, including missile and drone storage sites as well as coastal early-warning radar stations, without penetrating deep into Iran’s interior to target core strategic objectives. This indicates that the U.S. aims to demonstrate its precision strike capability through targeted, limited strikes—delivering a punitive message to Iran—while deliberately controlling the intensity of conflict, thereby preserving room for de-escalation and showing no intention to escalate friction into full-scale war.
Vance’s remarks on social media represent a carefully designed policy package. On one hand, he draws a clear red line, warning that “violence will be met with violence,” thus deterring Iran; on the other hand, he offers an open channel for communication by saying “if there are objections, just pick up the phone.” This “a slap followed by a sweet treat” strategy is intended to bring the negotiation process back to the table, compelling Iran to continue abiding by the agreement framework within the 60-day negotiation window.
The core of this conflict lies in differing interpretations of the agreement's terms. The U.S. views Iran’s use of drones to attack merchant ships as “unprovoked aggression,” clearly violating the ceasefire agreement. In contrast, Iran invokes Article 5 of the memorandum of understanding, asserting that control over passage through the Strait of Hormuz belongs exclusively to Iran, and maintains that U.S. intervention and the lack of coordination with Iran regarding the involved vessels constitute the breach. Both sides accuse each other of being the first to violate the agreement, seeking moral and legal high ground.
This incident once again highlights the vulnerability of the Strait of Hormuz as a global energy chokepoint. Despite the U.S.-Iran ceasefire agreement, Iran effectively retains the authority to set the rules governing passage through the strait (such as designating shipping routes and requiring coordination). As long as this fundamental dispute remains unresolved, the issue of safe navigation through the Strait of Hormuz could easily become a trigger for renewed U.S.-Iran conflict, continuously affecting international oil markets and global supply chain stability.
In summary, Vance’s statements and U.S. military actions are not aimed at completely dismantling the ceasefire agreement, but rather a “forceful correction” within the framework of the agreement. The key going forward lies in Iran’s response: if Iran chooses silence or seeks diplomatic de-escalation, it implies a tacit agreement to maintain the negotiation framework; however, if Iran launches further substantive military retaliation, it may trigger higher-level U.S. military responses, leading to complete loss of control over the situation.
The implementation of the agreement remains highly uncertain. Although both sides have shown restraint and avoided escalation, the potential for new conflicts persists due to divergent interpretations of the agreement.
Sixty days will certainly not pass peacefully.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1869113771419648/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.