By Dr. Pshtiwan Faraj

Sulaimani, Iraqi Kurdistan — 25 May 2026

Trump’s Iran War Enters Dangerous New Phase as U.S. Strikes Continue and Middle East Order Begins to Fracture Washington says negotiations are progressing, but new U.S. strikes in southern Iran, escalating Israeli operations in Lebanon, and mounting regional skepticism reveal a conflict drifting toward a wider geopolitical transformation.

U.S. forces launched new “self-defense” strikes inside Iran as Trump pushes for a nuclear deal, Hormuz reopening, and an expanded Abraham Accords framework amid growing regional instability.

The war between the United States, Israel, and Iran is no longer simply a military confrontation.

It is rapidly becoming a battle over the future political order of the Middle East itself.

While President Donald Trump publicly claims a historic peace framework with Iran is within reach, events unfolding across the region suggest the conflict is entering an even more volatile and unpredictable stage.

Fresh U.S. “self-defense” strikes inside Iran, continued tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, intensifying Israeli operations in Lebanon, and Trump’s astonishing push to expand the Abraham Accords have exposed the deep contradictions at the center of Washington’s strategy.

The White House says diplomacy is advancing.

But the Middle East increasingly looks like a region sliding toward long-term instability rather than sustainable peace.

U.S. Strikes Continue Despite “Ceasefire”

The latest escalation came after United States Central Command confirmed that American forces launched strikes in southern Iran near Bandar Abbas.

According to CENTCOM, the operation targeted Iranian missile launch positions and naval units allegedly attempting to deploy mines near strategic maritime routes.

Washington described the strikes as “very small” and purely defensive.

Yet the political significance is enormous.

The attacks reveal that even amid ongoing negotiations and an extended ceasefire framework, the United States remains actively engaged in military operations on Iranian territory.

That reality undermines claims that the region is genuinely moving toward de-escalation.

For Tehran, the strikes reinforce long-standing suspicions that Washington intends to maintain pressure regardless of diplomatic progress.

For Gulf Arab states, they are another reminder that the conflict remains dangerously close to spiraling out of control around the world’s most critical energy corridor.

The Strait of Hormuz Has Become the Center of the Crisis

At the heart of the confrontation lies the battle over control of Hormuz.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio made clear that Washington considers Iranian attempts to regulate shipping through the strait completely unacceptable.

Rubio declared the waterway would reopen “one way or the other,” accusing Iran of creating an unlawful “tolling system” that threatens the global economy.

His comments reflected growing international concern.

Few major powers — including China and Russia — support any prolonged Iranian disruption of shipping routes through the Gulf.

The reason is simple: the Strait of Hormuz remains one of the most strategically important economic arteries on earth.

Any sustained instability there threatens oil markets, shipping insurance costs, global inflation, and the broader world economy.

But Tehran also understands the leverage Hormuz provides.

Iran lacks the economic and military strength to defeat the United States directly, yet it can still impose enormous costs by threatening maritime trade.

That strategic reality explains why Hormuz has become the centerpiece of negotiations between Washington and Tehran.

Trump Softens His Position on Iran’s Uranium

Another major shift emerged when Trump signaled flexibility regarding Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile.

For months, the administration insisted Iran must surrender all enriched material directly to the United States.

Now Trump says the material could instead be destroyed inside Iran or at another internationally supervised location under monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The change may appear technical, but it represents a major political retreat from earlier maximalist demands.

It suggests the White House increasingly recognizes the limits of military pressure.

Iran’s government survived the initial assault.

Its command structure remains intact.

Its regional networks continue functioning.

And despite devastating strikes, Tehran still possesses the ability to threaten U.S. forces, Gulf infrastructure, and regional shipping lanes.

Washington may now be prioritizing containment and stabilization over outright strategic defeat.

Netanyahu Expands the Conflict Beyond Iran

Complicating Trump’s diplomacy is the increasingly aggressive posture of Benjamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu announced that Israeli operations in Lebanon would intensify, with Israeli forces striking dozens of alleged Hezbollah targets.

The escalation highlights a growing divergence between Israeli and American priorities.

The Trump administration appears eager to freeze the Iran front before economic damage deepens further.

Israel, however, seems determined to continue reshaping the regional military balance through sustained pressure on Iran’s allied networks.

That divergence creates a dangerous problem for any future agreement.

Even if Washington and Tehran eventually reach a framework deal, Israeli military operations could continue fueling instability across Lebanon, Syria, and beyond.

This is one reason many Gulf governments remain skeptical that any near-term peace arrangement can truly stabilize the region.

Trump’s Abraham Accords Expansion Faces Harsh Reality

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Trump’s new strategy is his proposal to dramatically expand the Abraham Accords.

The president reportedly encouraged Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan to eventually normalize relations with Israel as part of a broader postwar regional settlement.

Trump even floated the astonishing possibility that Iran itself could someday join.

The proposal immediately triggered widespread disbelief among analysts and diplomats.

The political conditions across the Middle East are arguably worse for normalization today than at any point since the original accords were signed in 2020.

The Gaza war, Israeli military campaigns in Lebanon, rising anti-Israel sentiment, and deep regional anger toward Washington have severely narrowed political space for Arab governments.

Saudi Arabia continues linking normalization to Palestinian statehood.

Pakistan still officially refuses to recognize Israel.

Turkey’s relationship with Israel remains highly unstable.

And Iran recognizing Israel after months of direct warfare remains virtually unimaginable.

For many observers, Trump’s proposal reflects either an attempt to reshape the diplomatic narrative after a costly war — or a profound misunderstanding of the current regional mood.

Tehran Remains Defiant

One of the most important strategic realities emerging from the conflict is that Iran has not collapsed.

Despite the scale of U.S.-Israeli operations, Iranian officials continue signaling confidence.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei acknowledged progress in negotiations but warned that no final agreement is imminent.

He also pointed to repeated shifts in U.S. positions, accusing Washington of sending contradictory signals during talks.

At the same time, Iranian military figures increasingly claim the country emerged stronger and more unified after the war began.

Whether true or not, such rhetoric demonstrates Tehran’s determination to project resilience rather than defeat.

That matters enormously.

Trump’s broader Middle East strategy appeared partially built around assumptions that Iran would quickly weaken politically and economically under sustained military pressure.

So far, those assumptions have not materialized.

A Region Moving Toward Strategic Fragmentation

The deeper consequence of the conflict may not be immediate war or peace.

It may be the gradual fragmentation of the regional order itself.

Gulf Arab states are increasingly questioning their dependence on American security guarantees.

Israel is expanding military operations beyond its borders.

Iran remains capable of asymmetric retaliation.

And Washington is struggling to simultaneously wage pressure campaigns, protect global shipping, reassure allies, and negotiate a nuclear framework.

The result is a Middle East entering a prolonged era of uncertainty.

Even if a temporary agreement is reached over Hormuz and uranium disposal, the underlying regional rivalries remain unresolved.

The future of Lebanon, Gaza, Iranian regional influence, Israeli military doctrine, and Gulf security architecture all remain deeply contested.

That means Trump’s challenge is no longer simply ending a war.

It is preventing the emergence of a permanently destabilized Middle East that neither Washington nor its allies can fully control.

#Iran #Trump #Israel #Hormuz #MiddleEast #Rubio #Netanyahu #AbrahamAccords #Geopolitics #CENTCOM