US Strikes Iran for Second Night — Is the Peace Process All Over Now?
By Shahnoor Saqib | SCN – Sky Communication News
The United States has struck Iran for a second consecutive night, Iran has fired back across the Gulf, and President Donald Trump has publicly suggested the fragile ceasefire may be “over.” Yet the most important fact is this: neither Washington nor Tehran has fully and formally buried the interim peace framework that was meant to stop the war, reopen the Strait of Hormuz and create space for nuclear talks.
That contradiction is now the heart of the crisis.
On the battlefield, the peace process looks close to collapse. In diplomacy, it is still breathing. The latest American strikes, Iranian missile and drone retaliation, and angry public statements from both capitals have pushed the June Memorandum of Understanding, or MoU, into its most dangerous phase since it was announced. But mediators from Pakistan, Qatar, Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are still trying to keep the channel open. AP reported that high-level communications are continuing “around the clock” to salvage the ceasefire, even as both sides accuse each other of violating the deal.
The immediate trigger for the latest escalation was Iran’s alleged attack on commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. Central Command said Iran attacked three commercial vessels — the Marshall Islands-flagged M/T Al Rekayyat, the Saudi Arabia-flagged M/T Wedyan, and the Liberian-flagged M/T Cyprus Prosperity — calling it a “clear and dangerous violation of the ceasefire.” CENTCOM then said U.S. forces hit around 80 Iranian military targets on July 7, including more than 60 IRGC small boats, to impose costs on Iran for allegedly violating the ceasefire.
By Thursday, the fighting had grown wider. AP reported that the U.S. launched new airstrikes against Iran and Tehran responded by targeting U.S.-allied countries, with sirens sounding in Bahrain, missiles targeting Kuwait and Qatar, and air defenses activated across the region. AP also reported that Iran’s Health Ministry said the two days of U.S. airstrikes killed at least 14 people and wounded 78.
What Was the Peace Deal Supposed to Do?
The June MoU was not a final peace treaty. It was an interim framework designed to freeze the war, reopen the Strait of Hormuz and restart negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program. A senior U.S. official disclosed what was described as the full text of the deal on June 17, saying the agreement aimed to cease hostilities, open the Strait of Hormuz and start nuclear talks.
The MoU reportedly included several major pillars: termination of military operations, respect for sovereignty, reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and a process for handling Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile under an agreed mechanism. Al Jazeera’s review of the text reported that the first clause called for the “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts,” while another clause said both sides would respect each other’s sovereignty and refrain from interfering in internal affairs.
That matters because the current crisis is not only about who fired first this week. It is about how each side interprets the MoU.
For Washington, Iran’s attacks on shipping are the central violation. The U.S. position is simple: if the agreement was meant to reopen Hormuz and protect navigation, then attacks on commercial vessels are a direct breach. That is why CENTCOM’s statements repeatedly frame the U.S. strikes as retaliatory action after Iranian aggression against ships.
For Tehran, the U.S. airstrikes themselves are the violation. Iran argues that Washington cannot claim to support a ceasefire while bombing Iranian territory. Tehran also accuses the U.S. of failing to uphold wider regional commitments, including issues linked to Lebanon and the Strait of Hormuz. AP reported that Tehran says Washington is violating the agreement regarding the strait and failing to ensure implementation of a Lebanon ceasefire, including Israeli withdrawal.
That is why the answer to “who violated the MoU?” depends on which clause is being emphasized — maritime security or non-aggression.
What Has Trump Said About Peace Talks?
Trump’s message has been deliberately hard, but not completely closed.
On July 6, Trump said the U.S. would either reach a deal with Iran or “finish the job.” Reuters reported that Trump told reporters: “We’re either going to make a deal or we’re going to finish the job,” while adding that he would rather make a deal because he did not want to affect 91 million people.
That statement is important because it shows Trump is still using the language of negotiation even while threatening escalation. He is not saying diplomacy is impossible. He is saying the deal must come on U.S. terms — or the military campaign will continue.
After the second night of strikes, Trump’s rhetoric became sharper. AP reported that Trump said he believes the ceasefire with Iran is over, that he is not sure he wants a deal anymore, and that the U.S. should “finish the job.” But AP also noted that Trump insisted the continued attacks do not necessarily mean a return to long-term war.
This mixed messaging is not accidental. Trump appears to be trying to create maximum pressure: tell Iran the ceasefire is dying, strike military targets, threaten more action, but leave enough space for Tehran to return to talks under pressure. AP quoted former U.S. military analyst Michael Eisenstadt saying, “we’re still in negotiating mode, no matter what the president says,” and that declaring the MoU over can itself be part of negotiation.
In other words, Trump’s public message is: the old deal may be dead, but a tougher deal may still be possible.
Does This Mean the Peace Process Is Over?
Not yet — but it is badly damaged.
There are three reasons the peace process is still technically alive.
First, neither side has completed a formal diplomatic withdrawal from the MoU. Trump has used the language of collapse, but mediators are still working and the agreement has not been replaced by a declared all-out war policy.
Second, both sides still have incentives to avoid a full regional war. Iran is under heavy military and economic pressure. The U.S. wants to protect shipping and prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, but Trump has also signaled he does not want a long conflict. AP reported Trump saying any action would happen “very fast” and that the U.S. was “not looking for a long time.”
Third, regional players want the deal saved. Pakistan, Qatar, Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia all have reasons to prevent the Strait of Hormuz crisis from becoming a wider war. Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry said renewed conflict is in “no one’s interest” and argued there is no alternative to continued engagement, dialogue and diplomacy.
But the peace process is now operating under battlefield pressure. The MoU was designed to stop attacks so negotiations could begin. Instead, attacks are now shaping the negotiations.
That means the deal is not dead on paper, but it may be dying in practice.
Which Side Violated the MoU?
The strongest evidence available publicly shows that both sides are accusing each other — but the first clear battlefield trigger cited by the U.S. and multiple reports was Iran’s alleged attack on commercial shipping.
CENTCOM’s official position is that Iran violated the ceasefire by attacking commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. It specifically named three vessels and said the aggression undermined freedom of navigation. CENTCOM then used that claim to justify U.S. strikes against Iranian military targets.
From the U.S. perspective, that makes Iran the first violator of the maritime/security part of the MoU.
Iran’s counterargument is that U.S. strikes on Iranian soil are themselves a violation of the MoU’s ceasefire and sovereignty commitments. The MoU included language about respecting sovereignty and territorial integrity, according to Al Jazeera’s review of the agreement. Tehran also argues that Washington failed to deliver on broader commitments linked to regional de-escalation.
So the balanced SCN assessment is this:
If the focus is the immediate trigger, Iran appears to have violated the ceasefire first by allegedly attacking commercial vessels in Hormuz. If the focus is the broader non-aggression clause, Iran argues that U.S. retaliatory strikes are also a violation. The MoU is now being interpreted through competing narratives, not a shared enforcement mechanism.
That lack of enforcement is the deal’s biggest weakness. There is no trusted referee. Each side acts as judge, prosecutor and military enforcer.
Why the Strait of Hormuz Is the Core Issue
The Strait of Hormuz is not a side issue. It is the center of the conflict.
AP reported that the U.S. said its strikes were intended to degrade Iran’s ability to threaten freedom of navigation through the strait, where a fifth of the world’s traded oil and natural gas passed before the war began. The MoU’s credibility depends heavily on whether ships can move safely again.
If Iran can threaten commercial shipping whenever talks stall, Washington will argue the MoU is meaningless. If the U.S. bombs Iranian assets whenever it sees a threat, Tehran will argue the ceasefire is meaningless. That is the trap both sides are now in.
The numbers also show why global markets are nervous. AP reported that maritime data showed at least 576 ships passed through the strait in June, compared with 233 in May, but far below more than 3,100 in June 2025. That means the MoU helped reopen traffic, but not enough to restore normal confidence.
Every new missile, drone or airstrike now sends a message beyond the battlefield: shipping companies, oil markets, Gulf governments and global consumers all read it as a warning that the route may become unsafe again.
The Real Danger: A Ceasefire Without Trust
The biggest problem is not only the strikes. It is the collapse of trust.
A ceasefire can survive one violation if both sides still believe the other wants the agreement. It cannot survive repeated attacks if each side believes the other is using diplomacy as cover for military advantage.
Washington believes Iran is using talks to buy time while keeping pressure on shipping. Tehran believes Washington is using the MoU to restrain Iran while keeping military options open. Hardliners in both capitals benefit from escalation because every new strike gives them proof that compromise is weakness.
AP reported that the new attacks could reflect a divide inside Iran’s leadership: hardliners want lasting control over the Strait of Hormuz, while pragmatists want a permanent peace deal to lift sanctions and ease economic pressure. That internal Iranian divide is crucial. If hardliners dominate, the MoU may collapse. If pragmatists regain control, Tehran may return to talks.
Trump also faces a political calculation. Escalation may project strength, but it risks oil price shocks, military entanglement and domestic criticism before U.S. midterm elections. AP noted that prolonged tension could become a political problem for Republicans if gas prices stay high.
What Happens Next?
There are three possible paths.
The first path is controlled escalation. The U.S. continues limited strikes, Iran responds symbolically or with limited attacks, and mediators keep both sides from crossing into full war. This is dangerous but still compatible with a revived MoU.
The second path is negotiated reset. Iran stops attacks on shipping, the U.S. pauses strikes, and mediators announce a technical mechanism to monitor Hormuz and restart nuclear talks. This is the best-case scenario, but it requires both sides to accept some political embarrassment.
The third path is collapse. Iran targets U.S. forces or Gulf states more directly, the U.S. hits deeper infrastructure, and the MoU becomes irrelevant. That would likely widen the war, disrupt energy flows and pull Gulf countries deeper into the conflict.
Right now, the first path — controlled escalation — appears most likely. The peace process is not functioning normally, but it has not fully disappeared. The violence is being used as leverage, not yet as a final replacement for diplomacy.
SCN Bottom Line
The peace process is not over — but it is no longer stable.
The June MoU has survived on paper, but the spirit of the agreement has been badly damaged. Trump is publicly threatening to “finish the job,” while still leaving a door open to a tougher deal. Iran is publicly defiant, while still allowing mediators to work behind the scenes. The U.S. says Iran violated the ceasefire by attacking commercial ships. Iran says the U.S. violated the agreement by striking Iranian territory and failing to deliver on broader regional commitments.
The most accurate conclusion is this: the peace process has entered a war-pressure phase. It is no longer diplomacy protected by a ceasefire. It is diplomacy taking place under fire.
If the next 48 to 72 hours bring fewer attacks, mediators may still rescue the MoU. But if the pattern continues — Iranian strikes on regional targets, U.S. strikes inside Iran, and Trump escalating threats — the interim deal may become only a document that both sides cite while fighting the war it was supposed to stop.