A small boat sails past cargo ships and other commercial vessels anchored in the strait of Hormuz off Bandar Abbas, Iran, on 5 August 2026. Photograph: Amirhosein Khorgooi/ISNA via APView image in fullscreenA small boat sails past cargo ships and other commercial vessels anchored in the strait of Hormuz off Bandar Abbas, Iran, on 5 August 2026. Photograph: Amirhosein Khorgooi/ISNA via APUS launches new airstrikes on Iranian targets as hostilities flareMove from Washington quashes hopes that exchange of fire last weekend might not presage wider renewal of hostilities
The US launched new airstrikes on Iranian targets on Tuesday, quashing hopes that an exchange of fire last weekend might not presage a wider renewal of hostilities.
Oil prices had already risen after that first exchange of direct attacks since July and after reports of two tankers being hit leaving the strait of Hormuz, the global oil supply waterway that Iran has effectively closed to shipping.
Tehran remained defiant, warning that it would prevent oil being exported from the Gulf, despite a threat by Donald Trump to hit Iran “hard” in response to the renewed Iranian strikes, and a warning from Scott Bessent, the US treasury secretary, that Washington was about to impose new sanctions.
“Today at 12 p.m. ET (1600 GMT), U.S. forces began striking Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) targets in Iran,” US Central Command posted on X. “The strikes follow recent attempted attacks by the IRGC against commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and against American service members deployed to the region.”
Iran’s state broadcaster said there had been reports of explosions on Iran’s Qeshm Island, on the northern side of the strait.
The state-linked news agency Nour News said there had been reports of explosions in the port city of Bandar Abbas and in Chabahar, a port on the southern coast.
The six-month conflict had shifted into an economic standoff before the weekend strikes, in which US forces attacked Iran’s Larak Island on Sunday and Iran responded by launching missiles at two US airbases in Jordan.
Although he warned of a US response to the Iranian strikes, the US president also told reporters on Monday that they did not signal a return to full-scale war, and a senior Iranian source told Reuters they were a “limited and contained confrontation”.
But pledges by both sides to respond to further attacks have highlighted how quickly a conflict that has increasingly been fought through sanctions, blockades and economic pressure could spill back into military action.
Masoud Pezeshkian, Iran’s president, had said early on Tuesday that Tehran would reciprocate immediately if Washington honoured its commitments under a June memorandum of understanding (MOU) that was intended to halt the conflict.
The MOU declared an end to fighting that has now killed thousands in Iran and Lebanon since US and Israeli strikes began on 28 February. But it also deferred many of the most difficult issues and paved the way for a broader 60-day negotiation period – which passed without further agreement.
“I am stating clearly that if the US returns to its commitments under the memorandum of understanding, the Islamic Republic of Iran will immediately reciprocate,” Pezeshkian said in the Kyrgyz capital, Bishkek, at a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which includes Russia and China.
But Iranian officials have shown no public sign of bowing to pressure.
“If the enemy wants us not to export oil from the Persian Gulf, no one will be able to export oil,” Mohammad Baqer QalibafIran’s parliament speaker was quoted as saying by Iranian media. If the US intensified its “siege”, he said Tehran would respond militarily.
Esmaeil Baghaei, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson, told a press conference in Tehran that Washington was “addicted to making excessive demands and has mistaken negotiations for dictating terms”.
“As long as they act in this manner, they will certainly get no result other than what they have achieved so far,” he added, warning that Tehran would “use all our capabilities, whether on the battlefield or through our diplomatic apparatus”.
