The fragile truce between the United States and Iran is going through one of its most sensitive moments since it came into force four weeks ago, strained by a combination of military actions, economic measures and contradictory political signals. At the center of the crisis is the control of the Strait of Hormuz, a key artery for global energy supply that, far from stabilizing, has become the scene of a controlled but constant escalation.
First modification: 05/05/2026 - 16:29 Last modification: 05/05/2026 - 16:54
The immediate trigger has been the US operation “Project Freedom”, promoted by Donald Trump, whose stated objective is to guarantee a safe route for merchant ships trapped by the Iranian blockade. However, from Tehran this initiative is interpreted as a direct violation of the ceasefire.
Added to this military pressure is a structural element that aggravates the tension: the maritime blockade imposed by the United States on Iranian ports. This measure, in parallel with the attempt to open the strait, configures a dual strategy that combines economic coercion and military projection. From the Iranian perspective, the message is unequivocal: Washington seeks to suffocate its logistical capacity while redefining the rules of navigation in the region.
The operational terrain reflects that action-reaction dynamic. The United States claims to have destroyed Iranian vessels and neutralized threats, while Iran denies these losses and accuses Washington of having attacked civilian targets. The absence of independent verification and contradictory versions fuel a climate of uncertainty that makes any real de-escalation difficult.
In parallel, the extension of the conflict to third parties has significantly increased the regional risk. The Iranian attacks against the United Arab Emirates, including the impact on energy infrastructure such as the port of Fujairah, which occurred on Monday, May 4, mark a turning point. Tehran not only responds to the United States, but also expands the theater of operations towards Washington's strategic allies. The publication of maps that claim maritime control over areas near the Emirati coast reinforces this ambition for regional dominance.
Read alsoMore than 100 aircraft and 15,000 soldiers: this is “Project Freedom”, announced by Trump to “liberate” Hormuz
“Project Freedom” and the clash of legitimacies
Operation “Project Freedom”, launched by Donald Trump, constitutes the axis of the US strategy to break the Iranian blockade. Its immediate objective is to escort merchant ships and reopen maritime traffic, with the ultimate aspiration of establishing a stable two-way route in the strait.
Washington presents the initiative as a necessary mission to guarantee global trade, but Tehran interprets it as a violation of the ceasefire. This difference in perceptions reflects a clash of legitimacy that complicates any understanding.
To display this content from X (Twitter), you must allow audience measurement and advertising cookies.
The president of the Iranian Parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, denounced on May 5 that the “new equations” in Hormuz are being defined by Washington and warned that the current situation is “unsustainable” for the United States, suggesting that the Iranian response has not yet reached its maximum intensity.
"The new equation of the Strait of Hormuz is in the process of consolidation (...) The security of maritime transport and energy transit has fallen into the hands of the United States and its allies, with the violation of the ceasefire and the imposition of a blockade; of course, its evil will be reduced," he warned, in a statement that suggests room for further escalation.
"We know well that the continuation of the status quo is unsustainable for the United States; while we have not even started yet," he added.
From the Iranian perspective, the US deployment not only challenges its control of the strait, but also upsets the strategic balance in the region. Hence, the Iranian authorities have renamed the operation “Project Impasse”, underlining their rejection of any military solution.
The US initiative, far from stabilizing the situation, has introduced a new element of friction that redefines the rules of engagement in the Gulf and increases the probability of direct incidents between both forces.
Read also"The ceasefire with Iran is not over, this is a different operation": Hegseth on the Strait of Hormuz
Economic blockade and war of attrition in the Gulf
Beyond the military dimension, the US strategy includes a maritime blockade that prevents the entry and exit of ships from Iranian ports. This measure seeks to weaken Tehran's logistical capacity and increase economic pressure in parallel to the operations in Hormuz.
Iran has responded with a combination of direct and indirect actions. According to the US command, Tehran has attacked merchant ships on several occasions and captured container ships, although these actions are presented by Washington as insufficient to justify a major offensive.
The incidents in the Gulf — including ship explosions and drone attacks — reflect a war of attrition in which neither side seeks a decisive confrontation, but both maintain the pressure.
The confusion is aggravated by episodes such as the explosion of a South Korean ship, whose origin has not been determined, illustrating the difficulty of attributing responsibility in a highly militarized environment.
In this context, maritime traffic continues to be conditioned by risk, with hundreds of vessels waiting to cross the strait under uncertain security conditions.
Read alsoMillion dollar tolls and selective opening: the plan approved in the Iranian Parliament for the Strait of Hormuz
The regionalization of the conflict: Emirates in the line of fire
The conflict has transcended the bilateral axis to involve regional actors, especially the United Arab Emirates. Iranian missile and drone attacks against its territory, including facilities in Fujairah, mark a significant escalation.
These actions have been interpreted by Abu Dhabi as direct aggression. Presidential advisor Anwar Gargash stated that the international support received “confirms that Iran is the aggressor,” reinforcing the narrative of Tehran as a regional destabilizer.
The European Union also condemned the attacks as “unprovoked,” stressing that they constitute a violation of international law and raising diplomatic pressure on Iran.
In parallel, Tehran has published maps that expand its maritime control zone to include areas near the Emirati coast, which, if materialized, would mean an almost total blockade of maritime access for the Gulf country.
This expansion of the conflict multiplies the risks, as it introduces new actors and increases the likelihood of a broader regional escalation.
Read alsoAttacks and seizures: Hormuz consolidates itself as the new battlefield after extension of the truce
Between containment and threat: Washington's ambiguity
One of the most relevant features of the current situation is the ambiguity in the American position. On the one hand, Washington insists that the ceasefire remains in effect – as US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth declared at a press conference on Tuesday, May 5 – and minimizes the seriousness of the Iranian attacks.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Caine, spoke along the same lines, declaring that Iran's recent attacks remain “below the threshold” that would justify the resumption of large-scale combat operations, despite including attacks on US ships and forces.
"Since the ceasefire was announced, Iran has fired on merchant ships nine times and captured two container ships, in addition to attacking US forces more than ten times - all below the threshold for resuming large-scale combat operations at this time," Caine said at the press conference alongside Hegseth.
A tone with which the United States seems to be trying to contain the resumption of the war it launched on February 28 with Israel.
Donald Trump himself, on Monday, May 4, downplayed the bombings against the United Arab Emirates that occurred hours before, describing the conflict as a “mini-war” and highlighting the absence of significant damage.
However, this reading contrasts with other harsher statements from the Pentagon. And Hegseth also warned on May 5 that Iran “will face overwhelming firepower if it attacks commercial shipping.”
This duality reveals a calibrated deterrence strategy: avoiding immediate escalation without giving up the threat of a forceful response.
Ultimately, the truce remains in an unstable equilibrium, where the accumulation of incidents and the lack of diplomatic progress increase the risk that any miscalculation will lead to a larger-scale open confrontation.
With Reuters, AP and local media
Related keywords
The content you requested does not exist or is no longer available.
