1. Is the ceasefire over?<\/p>\n
US officials have sought to play down the significance of the attacks in media briefings this week, claiming that the ceasefire remains in place and wider negotiations with Iran<\/a> have not been affected. Trump\u2019s remarks on Thursday indicated that the ceasefire may even lead to a peace deal, but Tehran did not immediately confirm his remarks.<\/p>\n In an earlier post on Thursday, Trump increased pressure on Tehran by saying that the US was planning to capture Iran\u2019s key infrastructure and take control of the country\u2019s oil industry. Iran would almost certainly reject any deal that included US control over its oil industry.<\/p>\n Trump wrote: \u201cAt some point in the not too distant future, we will be taking Kharg Island, and other oil infrastructure points, and assume total control of their Oil and Gas Markets.\u201d He said the situation would be \u201cmuch like we have with Venezuela\u201d.<\/p>\n In previous efforts to downplay the renewed US attacks on Iran, the Wall Street Journal reported<\/a> that, after authorising the latest attacks, Trump instructed aides to send a message to Iran via Qatar that the strikes did not signal a \u201crestart of all-out war\u201d and were solely a response to the helicopter downing.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \u201cNothing changes where the deal stands right now,\u201d another White House official told Politico<\/a>. \u201cThere\u2019s a military bucket and then there\u2019s a negotiation bucket \u2026 so, two things can happen at the same time.\u201d<\/p>\n Brett McGurk, who held senior national security positions in the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations, noted that the US had clearly telegraphed to Iran that another attack was coming on Thursday.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat they\u2019re trying to do is manage that escalation \u2026 to say to Iran: \u2018We\u2019re going to respond, this is coming, but this is not a restart of the campaign we started in February\u2019,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n For weeks, Trump has claimed that a deal to bring a permanent end to the conflict was close and that he has gone out of his way to avoid a return to all-out war. But the president is grappling with plummeting approval ratings, as the conflict has proved deeply unpopular at home.<\/p>\n Israeli settlers look at a fallen rocket in the West Bank city of Jericho. Photograph: Ilia Yefimovich\/AFP\/Getty Images<\/p>\n Meanwhile, despite claiming on Wednesday to \u201clove\u201d inflation,<\/a> a third consecutive monthly rise in prices is weighing on Trump and his Republican party in the run-up to the midterm elections.<\/p>\n Yet despite repeated claims that a deal with Iran is imminent, significant differences remain between the two sides. Restrictions on Tehran\u2019s nuclear programme, the unfreezing of Iranian assets, and Israel\u2019s continued war in Lebanon are still substantial obstacles to an agreement.<\/p>\n 2. What is the US hoping to achieve with this latest round of strikes?<\/p>\n With the White House and Pentagon signalling that the US is not seeking a return to all-out war, Hegseth offered some clues to strategy.<\/p>\n The renewed strikes were not happening \u201cbecause we want to restart anything\u201d, the defence secretary said, but because the US \u201cis prepared to set the terms to ensure that we get the kind of deal President Trump expects. If we need to negotiate with bombs, we will negotiate with bombs.\u201d<\/p>\n Trump and Hegseth last month. Photograph: Samuel Corum\/CNP\/Shutterstock<\/p>\n Meanwhile, a US official told the Wall Street Journal the \u201cmilitary pressure would only increase until Iran ceded to the president\u2019s terms\u201d.<\/p>\n The view that US attacks this week were designed to further press Iran to cede to Trump\u2019s terms was reflected in reporting from Axios<\/a>, which said the US president had discussed with his national security team an operation that would be \u201cbig in scale but short in duration\u201d, intended to push Iran towards changing its negotiation position.<\/p>\n But \u201ccoercive diplomacy\u201d is not the only reason for the escalating attacks, according to Hamidreza Azizi, a visiting fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. The choice of targets \u2013 including air-defence systems, command-and-control centres and radar systems \u2013 suggest the Trump administration wants to weaken Iran\u2019s ability to target shipping in the strait of Hormuz and \u201csignal at the highest political level that the security situation around the strait is improving, thereby reassuring shipping companies\u201d.<\/p>\n Taken together, the attacks can be seen as an attempt to erode Iran\u2019s leverage over the strait of Hormuz, Azizi said.<\/p>\n 3. Will further pressure bring Iran to the negotiating table?<\/p>\n Iran\u2019s ambassador to the UN, Amir Saeid Iravani, said on Wednesday that \u201cno sustainable deal can be reached through terrorists, intimidation, or the use of force. Iran has never negotiated under threats and pressure and will never submit to pressure or question,\u201d adding that the US had repeatedly pursued such a policy and should have learned by now \u201cthat threats and military intimidation are counterproductive\u201d.<\/p>\n Throughout the war, Iran\u2019s leadership has remained unwilling to bend to US terms, despite widespread attacks and economic devastation.<\/p>\n