Iran War: US Attacks Iran After Iran Fires on Vessels Using Oman Channel; Israel-Lebanon “Peace” Scheme Moves to Cede Southern Lebanon to Israel, Undercutting Hezbollah and Iran

[Today’s Iran war post fired before complete because I did not plan to produce one today. Please return at 8:00 AM EDT for a final version]

Today’s Iran war post will be sketchy, but that may not be a bad thing, since there is a lot of noise in the informational signal so it seems better to say less until more solid details emerge.

To start with a general comment: I anticipate that (as has already been starting) my commentary may alienate readers since there is now a large contingent that is rooting for Team Iran and takes umbrage at criticism of Iran’s actions and public position. The fact that the US is joined at the hip with an ethnosupremacist, genocidal state, and on other fronts is engaged in a geopolitical smash-and-grab operation does not make Iran a paragon of virtue, even if one can legitimately celebrate the prospect that Iran will permanently diminish US and Israeli power.

During the 2015 Greek bailout crisis, this site attracted a lot of vitriolic comments because we assessed, early on, that Greece had already unknowingly ceded its position to the Troika by signing a memorandum to secure an interim funding that committed it to an IMF “program” as in austerity. Describing how Greece was destined to lose was treated as if we were advocating for that outcome, as opposed to merely describing what looked likely to play out. And indeed, Syriza’s protracted fight with the IMF, ECB and European states resulted in Greece getting worse terms in July 2015 that if it had accepted the deal on offer in February 2015.

Having said that, the current power struggle between the US and Iran, with Israel and the Gulf States as actors that can also affect outcomes, is far too complex to say much with certainty now. However, quite a few commentator of the anti-globalist persuasion are cheerleading Iran to the degree that they are engaged in sloppy analysis, like omitting facts that are potential major challenges for Iran, or amplifying Iran claims that are nonsense (it is a sign of Iran encountering issues that it may not have adequately anticipated that Iran seems to be deviating from its previous posture of generally being quite credible).

The US Attacks Iran After Iran Fires on Vessels Transiting the Strait of Hormuz

From Bloomberg in Iran, US Trade Accusations of Violating Ceasefire After Strikes:

Tehran and Washington traded accusations that the other had violated the ceasefire after Iran claimed on Saturday that it had targeted US sites in the Persian Gulf after American aircraft hit Iranian weapons sites on Friday.

The US strikes — on missile storage and coastal radar installations — were in response to an Iranian drone attack on a Singapore-flagged container ship in the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday. The back-and-forth threatens to unravel the fragile detente that had largely ended fighting in the Middle East, though an unnamed US official told CNN after the US strikes that they didn’t constitute a return to major combat operations for now.

The US fired on Iran 33 minutes after the markets closed on Friday.

Updates on Iran’s retaliation came after the post first fired:

🇮🇷🇺🇸 Iran HITS U.S. Base in Bahrain After Sirik Island Strike

The U.S. Fifth Fleet is headquartered in Bahrain. At dawn Saturday, June 27, Iranian drones struck Bahrain in answer to the U.S. attack on Iran's Sirik Island.

A projectile also hit an oil tanker off Oman, damaging… https://t.co/JTfllkJbss pic.twitter.com/ZZ0In9tY9d

— Ryan Rozbiani (@RyanRozbiani) June 27, 2026

From Aljazeera:

And from its live feed:

This looks to be a limited response:

Bahrain says Iran launched drone attacks on its territory

Bahrain’s foreign ministry issues a statement, saying it strongly condemns the Iranian drone attacks in the early morning hours, describing them as a “serious violation” of sovereignty and international law.

It said several drones targeted its territory, without specifying the exact location or the nature of the target. The incident endangered civilians and undermined regional de-escalation efforts, the statement added.

However:

BREAKING: Iranian state media says the IRGC has targeted several locations of US Army deployment in the Middle East following US strikes on Iran.

The IRGC says any further attacks by the US will draw a "broader response."

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) June 26, 2026

And there was another vessel hit in the Strait of Hormuz:

UKMTO says vessel struck by ‘unidentified projectile’ in Hormuz

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) says a ⁠tanker has been struck ⁠⁠in the Strait of Hormuz.

The captain of a tanker said the vessel was struck by “an unidentified projectile”, the UKMTO said.

It added that the vessel sustained damage to the bridge, all crew members are reported safe, and no environmental damage has been reported at present.

Authorities are investigating the incident, the UKMTO said.

The Continuing Struggle for Control of the Strait of Hormuz

Even though Iran clearly can control traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, it is not doing so now. Even with Iran having fired upon ships in the Oman channel and getting the UN to drop its initiative to use that route to get ships trapped in the Gulf, vessels are still departing on the Oman side, via a clearly not-Iran-approved route. From Lloyd’s List (before the US attack on Iran) in Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike and suspension of IMO exit strategy:

• Discussions between the foreign ministries of Iran and Oman on Monday helped finalise the IMO plan before its abrupt suspension
• The IRGC continues to insist that the only legitimate passage through the strait is the northern route under its control
• At least four vessels reversed course after the IRGC Navy reiterated its position on the northern route
• Traffic through the Omani lane nevertheless continued on Thursday and Friday despite the attack on the Ever Lovely, Iran’s warning and the IMO’s pause on the evacuation plan

The International Maritime Organization’s evacuation plan — developed with Oman, Iran and the US — remains suspended as secretary‑general Arsenio Dominguez again seeks firm assurances that ships using the corridor will not be attacked. Yet traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has continued largely unabated, even after the strike on Ever Lovely and despite the IMO’s decision to pause the initiative….

Nevertheless, the attack on Ever Lovely was enough to bring the plan to a screeching halt, just days after it began, although vessels continued to sail through the Omani lane on Thursday and Friday despite the attack and the IMO’s decision to pause the plan.

Dominguez confirmed that 115 vessels and around 2,500 seafarers had been able to exit the Middle East Gulf during its short lifespan, though he said those figures did not include some transits that had taken place on Friday morning….

Despite the pause, ships continued to move through both the Omani and Iranian lanes on Thursday and Friday. Several vessels that initially turned back after the IRGC Navy statement later resumed their voyages and completed their transits.

Lloyd’s List Intelligence data shows at least 26 vessels of over 10,000 dwt transiting with AIS on using the southern route from 1410 hrs on June 25, when Ever Lovely was hit, to 1200 hrs on June 26, excluding vessels that were mid-transit when the attack took place. Eleven used the Iran-approved northern route.

Iran is attempting to justify its intervention on the Oman side of the Strait of Hormuz as consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). There is simply no way to reach that conclusion based on the clear language of the MOU. It clearly contemplates Iran acting to facilitate, not impede transit. It does not give Iran authority to violate Oman’s sovereignity via aggression in Oman’s territorial waters. The germane sections:

4 — Immediately upon the signing of this MOU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days. During this period, the traffic of vessels will be in proportion to the numbers of pre-war traffic being restored by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal.

5 — Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge, for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles, and demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialog with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.

Even Trita Parsi has cleared his throat to object:

The IRGC argues that the US encouraged a violation of clause 5 of the MOU by pushing ships to transit through the southern part of the Strait without coordinating with Iran, claiming that the clause stipulates that all transits must be coordinated with Iran.

Here's what that…

— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) June 26, 2026

A lot of anti-globalists read more into a Bloomberg story with new remarks on the Strait of Hormuz than was there. From Oman Tells Allies Ships Going Through Hormuz May Have to Pay:

Oman has told European officials there’s no way of going back to the pre-war status quo with the Strait of Hormuz and transiting ships may have to be charged some fees, according to people familiar with the matter.

While Omani officials said they will always abide by international maritime law, they added there could be fees for services related to de-polluting the strait or helping ships navigate it, the people said, asking not to be named discussing private matters. It’s unclear if Oman said all these fees would be obligatory.

Oman is analyzing systems used for chokepoints across the globe, including the Malacca strait in Asia, said the people, an area where there are no mandatory shipping charges.

Mario Nawfal said as an aside in one of his new talks that Oman walked back the statements reported on Bloomberg, but I did not find corroboration on a fast pass on Twitter.

Sal Mercoglino admittedly has a strong bias in favor of freedom of navigation, but he has bothered studying the relevant law, which he admits it not exactly clear with respect to Iran via it not having signed UNCLOS. However, Oman has signed UNCLOS, which means it has agreed to a regime called “transit passage”. The short version is that it gives states very little in the way of rights to interfere with vessel passage or impose levies. I can imagine Gulf States going to the International Court of Justice to try to block Oman if it tries to impose a fee regime…and if the ICJ accepts amicus briefs, that a huge number would be filed supporting the Gulf States’ opposition.

Another way to look at this is that Oman is an extremely difficult position, since it has made a point of being scrupulously neutral. But in situations like this, actions speak louder than words, So far, it is acting (albeit in as limited a manner as possible) in line with what the US and its Gulf neighbors want.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but Iran has lost a great deal of leverage with the US and China succeeding in keeping oil prices so low even as the underlying crunch has gotten worse. Perhaps Iran can regain some of this advantage if it really does choke the Strait. But the MOU commits Iran to keeping traffic moving.

Jeff Currie, in a new talk with Mario Nawfal, still believe an oil crunch will come, but only after the predicted mini-gusher of the supply bottled up in Gulf getting to its destinations.

Currie also opines that Iran is a weaker escalatory position than before. It is trying to mend fences with its Gulf neighbors, so attacking them again, even any hollow remnants of US bases, would set that way back. Attacking energy infrastructure is off the table unless the US were to hit Iran energy facilities. Having said that, Ansar Allah could still choke Bab-el-Mandeb, but againn, that hurts the Saudis, who are believed to have denied the US the use of its bases and airspace in the last exchange of volleys over Israel’s bombing of Beirut (as attested by Iran striking only Kuwait, Jordan and Bahrain in its retaliation).

Israel-Lebanon Framework a Spanner to Israel Withdrawal from Lebanon, as Required in MOU?

Benjamin Netanyahu made statements about a framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel, the key provisions of which effectively ceded southern Lebanon to Israel in return for Israel withdrawing from some small areas. If this were to become effective, it would largely vitiate the provisions in the first clause of the MOU, which effectively required Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.

But do not despair yet! Netanyahu has oversold that state of play. From Shaiel Ben-Ephraim on Twitter:

Here are the details of the framework deal between Israel and Lebanon signed today. Here is why it is a non-starter:

1) The deal is not a peace deal but just a framework for future talks. No recognition is involved.

2) The core mechanism is two “pilot zones.” The Lebanese army deploys, takes exclusive control, and dismantles Hezbollah infrastructure. One zone south of the Litani, one north of it. This is not the first time this kind of deal has been reached. It has never come to fruition.

3) One zone sits in territory Israel seized in the last two weeks. Netanyahu openly says the IDF does not need it. So Israel is “conceding” land it grabbed specifically to hand back.

4) The two sides sold opposite deals at home. Netanyahu: we stay in the security zone, this is a great achievement. Salam: this brings us closer to full withdrawal. Same text. Two contradictory promises. No doubt Israel is the one to listen to. They will not withdraw.

5) There is no timeline. Israel ties any withdrawal to Hezbollah disarmament across all of Lebanon, with full freedom of action retained. That is not a deadline. That is a permanent veto.

6) The parties who can break it were not in the room. Hezbollah rejects the pilot zones. Berri rejects them, “Lebanon is divided into districts, not pilot zones.” Iran calls continued occupation a breach of its MOU with Washington. None of them signed anything.

This is another deal without Hezbollah, resting on the illusion that the Lebanese army can force anything on Hezbollah. They can’t and they won’t. Israel knows this and will use this as a pretext for continued occupation and ethnic cleansing of Lebanon.

Middle East Eye confirms the idea that any Israel-Lebanon agreement will meet fierce domestic agreement.

Hezbollah supporters protest in Beirut against Israel deal

Hundreds of Hezbollah supporters took to the streets of Beirut from late Friday into Saturday to protest against a framework agreement reached between Lebanon, Israel and the United States.

The protesters rode motorcycles through the Lebanese capital, including central Beirut, near parliament and along the airport road, hours after the agreement was announced.

Footage shared by local media and on social media showed hundreds of Hezbollah supporters riding motorbikes and mopeds through Beirut’s southern suburbs of Dahieh, which suffered widespread destruction in Israeli air strikes.

Some protesters gathered near the seat of government and blocked a nearby main road, while other footage showed soldiers dispersing demonstrators who had blocked the airport road with burning tyres before the army reopened it, Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency (NNA) said.

And:

🇱🇧 BREAKING! Footage circulating now shows Beirut's government Serail surrounded by furious crowds after the Lebanese regime signed an agreement with Israel.

Protesters have laid siege to the Serail, the seat of the Lebanese government, after news broke that Beirut formally… pic.twitter.com/hEYPIedlkq

— DD Geopolitics (@DD_Geopolitics) June 26, 2026

But Israel would be happy to precipitate a civil war.

Finally, by any logical standard, the MOU is dead. Not only has the US not taken steps to get Israel to stop violating the ceasefire, Defense Minister Katz said the US had not asked Israel to pull out of Lebanon. We can see why. If the Lebanon-Israel pact is consummated, there is no basis for a withdrawal demand. The US and Iran are still sparring over the status of the frozen assets. The $300 billion reconstruction fund looks destined to be stillborn.

So why has Iran not walked away? The fastest thing it could do to restore leverage would be to get the Trump Team and the global business community worried that traffic through the Strait of Hormuz could fall back to its recent, badly choked level.

Mind you, Iran could throw down a marker by not participating in the technical talks. But why continue?

1. Even though Iran likely knows full well that the US and Israel intend to rearm and attack Iran again, Iran can restock much faster. So delaying a resumption of a hot war works to Iran’s advantage

2. China and Russia really want the conflict settled because the alternative of a global depression is bad for them too.

3. However, at least some key Iran decision-makers may have become captive to endowment effect, of valuing something you possess more than the value you assigned it before you received it. Iran has gotten two valuable things from the MOU: a 60 day reprieve from sanctions on oil shipments and the US blockade. Iran has per Professor Marandi been shipping oil like crazy and may be stocking other goods such as pharmaceuticals that got to be in dangerously short supply. Some may also be banking on the idea of reparations somehow, when trying to snooker the damaged-by-Iran Gulf States into ponying up for an Iran rebuild is a non-starter (save at more than symbolic levels).

#3 may seem like a stretch, but Alexander Mercouris has said Russian officials are very concerned that Iranians are giddy with their apparent success and are losing sight of how the US plans to out-maneuver, Iran or just renege.

For instance, Section 5 of the MOU is a poison pill as far as the Iran and Oman jointly operating the Strait of Hormuz so as to control traffic and charge meaningful fees is concerned:

The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialog with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.

It clearly invoked littoral state rights, as enshrined in UNCLOS, for transit passage,¹ which means Iran cannot charge meaningful fees or restrict passage.

All for today! Hope not to see you till Monday!

_______

¹ From Wikipedia:

Transit passage is a concept of the law of the sea that allows a vessel or aircraft the freedom of navigation or overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of a strait from one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone to another. The requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a state bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that state. The transit passage may be exercised regardless of the nationality (flag) of the ship, its form of ownership, the merchant or government status of a ship or warship, or the private or government status of an aircraft (under the Convention on International Civil Aviation of 1944).[1]

Within such straits (article 37 of UNCLOS), including Arctic straits,[citation needed] all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage (article 38 of UNCLOS), in accordance with Part III of UNCLOS, which means the right of navigation and overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of the strait between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone.