The pause is over — and this time, Iran's calculus is simple: strike first, talk later. Here's how we got here. The latest phase of the U.S.-Iran war had moved from nightly U.S. strikes to a fragile diplomatic pause — even as CENTCOM reported intercepted Iranian missiles and U.S.-Saudi strikes on Iran-backed PMF sites in Iraq. By our last edition, that pause was already fraying: PBS reported Trump threatening more strikes after Iranian attacks on a U.S. base in Jordan, plus a new explosion in Egypt. This is Iran War Daily. Today — IRGC footage of a strike on a Jordanian base, tankers burning in Hormuz, and Trump wanting to slap tariffs on a country we buy almost nothing from. Stick around. This one's from Al-Monitor:
On Wednesday night Eastern time, the US military launched a wave of airstrikes against IRGC targets in southern Iran, including command centers and missile sites, in retaliation for a thwarted Iranian ballistic missile attack in Jordan a day earlier. The tit-for-tat has upended an informal truce that took effect Friday when both sides halted their nearly two-week run of attacks and counterattacks.
Six months. Trump said this thing would run a few weeks, and here we are watching Iran throw the first punch six months in. That's the shift Al-Monitor's flagging: the informal truce that took hold Friday is gone. The US hit IRGC command centers and missile sites in southern Iran Wednesday night, followed by IRGC claims of drone and missile attacks on bases in Jordan and Kuwait. Vatanka at the Middle East Institute puts Tehran's message plainly: quote, we too can surprise you. Tehran's refusing to let Washington set the tempo. That's the part that should worry people. When one side decides going first is the smart play, everyone starts racing up the escalation ladder. And the IRGC's line today was what — the aggressor will be punished? According to state media, yes — that's from an IRGC statement, and it's their framing. The base-attack claims are still Iran's account, so I'd separate the confirmed US strikes from what Tehran says happened. This one's from Al Jazeera:
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps released a video of what they say were missiles launched by their naval forces targeting US aircraft at Jordan’s Al Azraq air base, in retaliation for US strikes on Qeshm Island that killed three people.
The source here is the IRGC itself — Iran's Revolutionary Guard released footage it says shows naval missiles hitting US aircraft at Al Azraq air base in Jordan. It's their video and their claim; there's no independent confirmation of what those missiles actually hit. And Iran frames it as retaliation for US strikes on Qeshm Island that it says killed three people. So in Tehran's telling, the sequence is Qeshm, then Al Azraq. Look at the address. Al Azraq is in Jordan — Iran's putting a missile on a base in a country that's neither Iran nor Israel. The war's footprint just jumped a border. Coming right after that 'strike first, talk later' piece we just covered, this is what it looks like on the ground. Iran names a US target and releases video to prove it's willing to own the attack. I'd be careful with 'prove,' though. Footage alone doesn't confirm that any aircraft were destroyed. We can confirm the release and the claim; the damage is still Iran's word. Fair — but Tehran doesn't need a battle-damage assessment to send the message. Jordan and US airmen are on the target list now, and Tehran wanted everyone to see it. Here's Sarah Shamim at Al Jazeera:
A tanker caught fire off the coast of Oman on Monday night after being struck by an“unknown projectile” in the Strait of Hormuz, according to the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO). Separately citing two unnamed US officials, news outlet Axios reported that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) fired at least two missiles at commercial ships transiting through the strait on Monday night.
So, the tanker that caught fire off Limah, Oman — UKMTO says it was hit by an 'unknown projectile.' Axios, citing two US officials, says the IRGC fired at least two missiles at commercial ships. Eight nautical miles off the Omani coast, two vessels badly damaged, no casualties. And keep those reports separate: UKMTO confirms a tanker was struck and caught fire. The attribution to the IRGC comes from Axios citing US officials; Tehran hasn't made that claim. Iranian TV suggested an LNG tanker ignored warnings, but Tehran didn't directly claim the attack. Here's what gets me: Oman was brokering a deal over this exact strait, with voluntary fees and a joint navigation mechanism, while Iran denied it alone controlled the water. Now commercial ships are being hit in that same channel while the negotiators are still at the table. Exactly why Hormuz was already the sticking point. Iran effectively closed it after the February strikes. Al Jazeera says attacks here hit the talks directly, and all of this is happening amid funeral processions for Khamenei, who was killed on day one of the war. Strike first, talk later, right? You can't run a shooting gallery in the same lane where you're promising freedom of navigation and expect insurers not to notice. Kevin Breuninger, writing in CNBC:
President Donald Trump wants Congress to add tariffs on Iran to a sanctions bill against Russia and Tehran that has bipartisan support. Those duties would have little effect because the U.S. imports nearly nothing from Iran. But tacking them on to the bill may torpedo its chances of becoming law.
Over on the diplomatic track, Trump told reporters at the White House Wednesday that Congress should add Iran tariffs to that bipartisan Russia-Iran sanctions bill. It's separate from the strikes, but it matters. Tariffs on Iran. We imported one-point-four million dollars of goods from them last year — and over half of it was art and antiques. What're we gonna do, sanction their collectibles? That's CNBC's read — a Villanova trade professor calls the tariffs 'entirely symbolic' because imports are trivial. But even a symbolic move can do real damage: bolting it onto a bill with actual bipartisan support could sink the whole thing. Right — that's the part that matters. You've got a sanctions package that could actually squeeze Tehran, and the tariff line item might be what costs it the votes. One pressure tool ends up kneecapping the whole pressure campaign. And look where this lands. While Congress is debating tariffs, the actual leverage is out in the strait we just covered, with missiles aimed at commercial ships. Customs duties on antiques barely register by comparison. If Iran War Daily helps you stay informed, subscribe and leave a review wherever you’re listening. Your review helps other people find the show.
You’ll find links to every story in today’s show notes, so you can spend more time with any that caught your attention. That’s Iran War Daily for today. This is a Lantern Podcast.