Iran-US: Araghchi accuses Washington of violating the truce; Trump threatens new attacks and relaunches the confrontation.

The confrontation between Iran and the United States is entering a new phase of intense instability, poised between renewed military attacks and diplomatic attempts to prevent a widening of the conflict. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has asserted that Tehran has respected its commitments, maintaining that the Islamic Republic has "kept its word" regarding the ceasefire. This position is diametrically opposed to that of US President Donald Trump , according to whom the truce reached in June must now be considered concluded, even though Washington has agreed to leave a negotiating channel with Iran open.

Araghchi: "There can be no respect without reciprocity."

In a message published on X, Araghchi directly accused the US administration of violating the memorandum of understanding signed between the parties. "Iran has so far kept its word, unlike the so-called US Treasury Secretary, who is violating paragraph 9 of the memorandum," the Iranian diplomat wrote. He was referring to the clause regarding the non-deployment of new US military forces in the region. Araghchi then added that "there can be no respect unless it is mutual," placing the blame for the current deterioration of the truce and the political conditions necessary for continuing the dialogue on Washington.

The Iranian statements came after Trump announced he had accepted Tehran's request to continue discussions, while clarifying that the United States had unambiguously communicated the end of the ceasefire. The Iranian Foreign Ministry immediately contested the American reconstruction, denying that the Islamic Republic had formally requested the resumption of negotiations. The public standoff demonstrates the fragility of the diplomatic channel: both sides claim to be open to discussion, but reject their opponent's version of responsibility and the manner in which the dialogue should resume.

Don't miss the latest news from La Milano: Add us to your favorite sources on Google in just one click.

Attacks in the Strait of Hormuz and the American military response

The new escalation is primarily linked to the situation in the Strait of Hormuz , the strategic waterway through which, before the war, approximately a fifth of the world's oil and gas trade passed. The United States accused Iran of attacking three merchant ships and responded with strikes over two consecutive nights against Iranian targets, including several ports in the country's south. Tehran then retaliated by striking targets in the Gulf countries, with operations targeting Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar.

Washington maintains that the memorandum reached in June envisaged the full opening of maritime routes, including the southern lane along the coast of Oman. Iran, however, continues to assert its right to manage naval traffic and allows passage through only one corridor along its coast, ruling out an automatic return to the pre-conflict situation. The disagreement therefore concerns not only the safety of ships, but also the political and economic control of one of the world's main energy arteries.

Araghchi's mission to Oman to seek an agreement on navigation

Araghchi arrived in Muscat , the capital of Oman, leading a delegation to discuss regional developments, particularly the management of the Strait of Hormuz. According to the Iranian Foreign Ministry, the visit represents a continuation of technical consultations initiated in previous months with the Omani authorities. Oman, traditionally involved in mediating between Iran and the United States, is seeking to develop a protocol to ensure navigation safety and reduce the risk of further military incidents.

Muscat had already established a temporary maritime corridor through its waters to facilitate the passage of commercial vessels. Iran maintains its commitment to fulfilling its maritime services commitments but does not intend to relinquish its influence over the Strait. The United States, however, is demanding a public and unequivocal statement from Tehran acknowledging that Hormuz is open to all vessels and committing to no longer targeting merchant vessels. Without these guarantees, American officials have warned, the conditions for launching new comprehensive negotiations would not exist.

US sources: Iran has admitted to mistake over ship attacks

According to senior US officials cited by CBS News, Iranian officials have privately acknowledged that they made a mistake in targeting commercial vessels in the Strait. Tehran's officials have attributed the attacks to an extremist faction or an "out of control" internal entity intent on sabotaging dialogue with Washington. This version has not been publicly confirmed by Iranian authorities, who continue to accuse the United States of having first violated the ceasefire.

The White House, however, considers the attacks a serious violation of the agreement and demands that any private admission be followed by a public acceptance of responsibility. Trump has reportedly authorized his negotiating team to continue discussions, but has granted a limited timeframe for achieving concrete results. According to officials, the U.S. administration remains ready to deploy new military and economic tools should Iran once again threaten commercial shipping.

American pessimism about a new nuclear deal

The renewed clashes also threaten to jeopardize negotiations on Iran's nuclear program. According to the Wall Street Journal , pessimism is growing within the Trump administration about the possibility of reaching a final agreement. Washington considers it essential that Iran guarantee freedom of navigation in the Strait and address the issue of its enriched uranium stockpiles, which Trump has defined as "nuclear dust" that should be handed over, removed, or subjected to verifiable international control.

The United States believes that no nuclear agreement can be reached without prior compliance with maritime commitments. The American position therefore seems to indicate a possible shift in strategy: the immediate priority would no longer be simply limiting Iran's nuclear capabilities, but concretely demonstrating that Tehran is capable of controlling its military facilities and ensuring the security of energy routes.

Trump threatens devastating response in case of attack

Further exacerbating the crisis were Trump's new threats against Iran. The American president claimed he had left precise instructions to the military in the event of Tehran's assassination attempt. In a message published on Truth Social, Trump claimed that hundreds of missiles were ready to be launched against the Islamic Republic, followed by further waves of attacks, should the Iranian government implement a plan to kill him.

The statements were made following the release of Israeli intelligence information regarding an alleged Iranian plot. However, not all US agencies have attributed the same level of credibility to the Israeli reports. Trump himself, in an interview with the New York Post , downplayed the possibility of a new, specific plot, while reiterating that he has been considered one of Tehran's main targets for years.

Iranian hostility toward the American president is traced primarily to the January 2020 killing of General Qasem Soleimani , commander of the Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force. Since then, Iranian officials have repeatedly vowed revenge against those responsible for the operation. Trump's new threats make it even more difficult to separate the diplomatic from the military and personal confrontation, fueling the risk that a single incident could trigger a large-scale retaliation.

Washington puts the brakes on Israel's direct involvement

Despite Israel's intelligence support, the US administration does not want Israeli forces directly involved in the new strikes against Iran. According to sources cited by CNN, the White House fears that Israeli participation could make the conflict uncontrollable and transform the limited fighting in the Strait of Hormuz into a new regional war.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reportedly in favor of more decisive action, but Washington has reportedly decided to manage operations independently in recent days. Differences have emerged between the United States and Israel over the agreement signed with Tehran and the possibility of granting the Islamic Republic new negotiating space. Trump also believes a full resumption of war would have significant economic and political consequences, especially given rising energy prices and the approaching US midterm elections.

A truce formally ended, but with diplomacy still open

The ceasefire thus appears politically concluded, but not definitively replaced by a new full-scale war. The American and Iranian attacks have undermined the trust built through the June memorandum, while conflicting interpretations of the clauses on the Strait of Hormuz make it difficult to identify a shared basis.

Mediators from Oman, Qatar, Turkey, and Pakistan continue to work to prevent further military operations. Araghchi's mission to Muscat represents the main test of whether it is still possible to reach an agreement on navigation and subsequently reopen the nuclear issue. The United States is demanding public and verifiable guarantees; Iran is demanding reciprocity, an end to strikes, and compliance with the limitations imposed on American military deployment.

The crisis thus remains suspended between two scenarios. The first envisions a technical solution in the Strait, capable of preserving commercial traffic and bringing Washington and Tehran back to the negotiating table. The second envisions renewed attacks, further reprisals against US bases in the Gulf, and a possible blockade of energy routes. At this stage, even a public statement or a naval incident could determine the direction of the confrontation.