“As far as I’m concerned, it’s over.”
That was Donald Trump on Wednesday, speaking about the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding — the ceasefire framework signed less than a month ago that was supposed to define a 60-day path toward a final US-Iran agreement. Twenty days in, with the ink barely dry on what Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had signed as mediator, the deal is in serious jeopardy.
US Central Command confirmed overnight that American forces struck approximately 90 Iranian military targets along Iran’s southern coastline on July 8, 2026 — the second consecutive night of US strikes, following an earlier round that hit roughly 80 targets the night before. Iran has retaliated by launching drones and missiles at US military bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Jordan. Bahrain’s Defense Force confirmed it intercepted and destroyed several Iranian aerial attacks on Thursday morning. Jordan said it intercepted eight Iranian missiles.
This is the most serious breakdown of the Islamabad Memorandum since it was signed.
How the Collapse Unfolded, in Precise Sequence
The trigger was a series of Iranian attacks on commercial shipping — exactly the behavior the Islamabad MOU was explicitly designed to stop.
The sequence that brought the ceasefire down:
- July 7: Two tankers struck by projectiles in and near the Strait of Hormuz — the Qatari-owned LNG tanker Al Rekayat and the Saudi-flagged supertanker Wedyan. The Al Rekayat suffered an engine room fire and was evacuated. Qatar publicly accused Iran of responsibility.
- Within 24 hours: A third vessel struck in or near the Strait by the IRGC. CENTCOM and the Joint Maritime Information Center both confirmed the attack.
- US response: The Department of the Treasury immediately revoked General License X — the oil sanctions waiver that Washington had issued as part of the Islamabad MOU — ending the 60-day authorization that had allowed Iranian oil exports to resume. The US then launched the first round of retaliatory strikes, hitting approximately 80 targets including more than 60 IRGC small boats.
- July 8: CENTCOM conducted a second round of strikes, hitting approximately 90 Iranian military targets described as “air defense systems, coastal surveillance assets, missile and drone storage sites, naval capabilities, and military logistics infrastructure along Iran’s coastline.” Trump threatened strikes would “get much worse” if Iran continued attacking ships.
- Iran’s retaliation: The IRGC targeted US military bases at Kuwait’s Arifjan and Ali Al Salem, Bahrain’s Juffair and Sheikh Isa, and a base in Jordan housing US forces. The Jordanian military intercepted eight missiles. The Bahrain Defense Force confirmed it destroyed several Iranian aerial attacks.
- Trump: “I don’t want to deal with them anymore. Trying to deal with the Islamic republic was a waste of time. As far as I’m concerned, it’s over.”
One Correction Worth Making Clear
One detail circulating in early reporting needs clarification. Iran’s retaliatory strikes targeted bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Jordan — not Qatar. Qatar was actually the victim of one of Iran’s original ship attacks, not a location targeted in the retaliatory strike wave. Getting that distinction right matters when the affected Gulf states are deciding how to respond diplomatically and militarily.
What Both Sides Are Claiming
This is a story where both governments are presenting conflicting accounts of who broke the deal first, and being honest about that matters for understanding where this goes next.
The US position, articulated by Vice President JD Vance: Iran adhered to the MOU “for approximately a week” before resuming attacks on commercial vessels. The oil sanctions waiver was explicitly conditional on Iran stopping those attacks. Iran violated that condition, the US revoked the waiver, and the strikes are a legitimate response to Iranian aggression against innocent civilian mariners.
Iran’s position, stated by Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi: The MOU includes a clause stating that Iran is responsible for “determining arrangements” for ships transiting the Strait. The US has “violated the agreement’s structure through its unilateral actions” by establishing an alternative US-guided shipping lane that challenges Iranian sovereignty over those waters. Iran’s chief negotiator Ghalibaf added: “America still hasn’t learned that bullying and breaking promises are no longer cost-free.”
In a phone call specifically flagged by Iran’s Foreign Ministry, Araghchi contacted Pakistan’s Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir directly — warning against further US “adventurism” and condemning the strikes as a violation of the Islamabad MOU. That Iran called Pakistan first is significant. It signals that Tehran still views Pakistan’s mediating role as potentially salvageable, even as the ceasefire itself collapses in real time.
The Deeper Dispute That Was Always There
Analysts who’ve watched this conflict from the beginning are not surprised. Noam Raydan of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy told RFE/RL this week that the unraveling exposed something that was never actually resolved: who controls the Strait of Hormuz.
The Islamabad MOU called for free passage through the strait. But Iran has consistently maintained that it sets the rules for transit through what it considers its sovereign waters. The US has been building an alternative routing system guided by US naval forces — a direct challenge to Iran’s claim of control. Both sides signed a document that used the same words while meaning fundamentally different things by them.
“There is no easy way to go back to the old maritime order,” Raydan said. “Iran wants ships to use the Iran-controlled lanes instead of the alternative system. By that I mean Iran wants ships to use the Iran-controlled lanes instead of the alternative routes guided by US forces in the region.”
That isn’t a misunderstanding that gets papered over with another round of talks. It’s a fundamental disagreement about sovereignty in one of the world’s most strategically critical waterways.
What the US Has Actually Destroyed
CENTCOM’s two-night strike campaign has been specifically targeted at Iran’s capacity to attack shipping — not at civilian infrastructure, at least not yet. The targets confirmed across both rounds include air defense systems, coastal surveillance assets, missile and drone storage sites, naval capabilities including IRGC small boats, and military logistics infrastructure along Iran’s southern coastline.
Trump threatened on Wednesday night to potentially hit civilian infrastructure next — specifically mentioning electric plants and desalination plants — though no such strikes had been confirmed as of the latest reporting. That threat represents a significant escalation in rhetoric beyond what either side has actually done militarily so far.
Pakistan’s Position, and What the Mediation Framework Means Now
Every article in this series has tracked Pakistan’s central mediating role — from the April Islamabad Talks through the June signing ceremony to Pezeshkian’s state visit to Islamabad just two weeks ago. This week’s collapse puts Pakistan in an extraordinarily difficult position.
Araghchi called Field Marshal Asim Munir directly. Pakistan hasn’t issued a public statement on the current strikes. The country that brokered the deal — and whose Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif signed it as mediator — now faces the choice of whether to attempt another round of mediation between two parties who are actively exchanging military strikes, or step back as the framework it helped build collapses around it.
Oman and Turkey are also being contacted by Tehran, per Iran’s Foreign Ministry. The network of back-channel mediators that produced the Islamabad MOU is still intact. Whether any of them can create the conditions for a third ceasefire attempt — after two have now collapsed — is genuinely uncertain.
What Happens Next
Three scenarios are now in play, and none of them are clean.
The first is further military escalation. Trump has threatened infrastructure strikes. Iran has promised its response will be “broader” if the US continues. The IRGC has already expanded its target list from ships to US military bases across multiple Gulf countries in a single night. Each round of exchange has been larger than the last.
The second is a return to mediation. Iran’s direct call to Pakistan’s army chief suggests Tehran hasn’t closed the door entirely. The 60-day window from the Islamabad MOU still technically exists on paper, even if Trump has declared it over. A third party — Pakistan, Oman, Qatar, or some combination — could theoretically restart the process if both sides find a face-saving offramp. That’s a significant “if.”
The third is a prolonged, managed standoff — neither full war nor peace, but a grinding contest for control of the Strait of Hormuz that continues indefinitely, with periodic exchanges of strikes and attacks on shipping, oil markets absorbing shocks, and the broader diplomatic process frozen.
Vance said last month that the Switzerland talks had laid “a very good foundation for a successful final deal.” That foundation is cracking. What remains of it — and whether anyone can put it back together — is the most consequential open question in global security right now.