ConflictClarifier

מעקב משבר איראן-המפרץ 2026
CC
Events Archive
strikeMay 12, 2026

Trump weighs limited Iran strike or temporary deal to reopen Hormuz, officials say

Summary

Israel would like to see fighting in Iran resume with strikes on energy and infrastructure targets that would significantly weaken the ayatollahs’ regime. But at this stage, Israel and the United States appear to see things differently. President Donald Trump is simply not eager to fully renew the fighting. According to an Israeli source, he now has two options before him: a limited, contained military operation that would not lead to escalation or a temporary agreement that would allow negotiations to continue and the Strait of Hormuz to reopen. A temporary agreement would provide mutual calm that would allow the strait to reopen, but would not resolve all the disputed issues. The assessment in Israel is that Trump does not want, and is not eager, to fully renew the fighting because he believes it would not improve his position and would only complicate matters for him domestically in the United States, with another rise in gas prices and harm to the Gulf states. Israel favors a more aggressive approach, but does not want to be accused of dragging Trump back into the fighting. One possibility being discussed in Washington is that the Americans will opt for a limited military operation and continue the blockade of Hormuz. In such a scenario, the Americans may ask Israel to sit on the sidelines and not intervene, understanding that if Iran launches missiles at Israel, the Israeli response would be severe and lead to a full-blown flare-up of the war. Neither the Iranians nor the Americans have an interest in the war fully resuming, so Israel may remain outside this time. In such a scenario, Iran would likely focus its response to an American strike on targets in the Persian Gulf. But Israel is preparing for all possibilities, including a scenario in which Trump ultimately orders the war to resume and Iran renews missile fire at Israel. The assessment in Israel is that, whatever happens, Trump will wait until he returns from his visit to China early next week. Meanwhile, Qatar is very active in mediation efforts behind the scenes. After the Iranian 14-point proposal was seen in the United States as a joke — or, in Trump’s words, “trash” — there is an effort to improve the Iranian proposal so that some kind of agreement may still be possible. An Israeli official said Qatar has entered the picture very forcefully. In Israel, there is concern that the Americans are talking to the Iranians only about the nuclear issue and Hormuz and are not touching at all on ballistic missiles or proxies. Trump wants to achieve two goals: opening Hormuz and a nuclear agreement that would remove enriched uranium from Iran. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not yet convened a meeting of the Security Cabinet. Netanyahu convened the smaller ministerial forum yesterday, and for now no additional meeting has been scheduled. That also indicates that decisions in the United States are being delayed until after Trump’s visit to Beijing.

Perspectives

Iranian Official

The Iranian government views Israeli calls for renewed strikes on its energy and infrastructure as clear acts of foreign aggression aimed at undermining the nation's sovereignty. Tehran rejects any US-led limited operations or Hormuz blockade as external interference, reaffirming its resistance to such pressures while defending its right to secure the strait and national interests. Iran remains steadfast against attempts to drag the region into further conflict.

Israeli

From an Israeli security perspective, renewed strikes targeting Iran's energy and infrastructure remain essential to degrade the ayatollahs' regime, which sustains a vast proxy network of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis encircling the Jewish state with existential threats. While Washington weighs limited options or a temporary Hormuz deal to avoid domestic fallout, Jerusalem views such restraint as risking a stronger Iranian foothold that could enable direct nuclear or missile attacks on Israel. Any U.S. request for Israeli restraint would hinge on clear defensive red lines, ensuring a severe response only if Iranian missiles force escalation to protect the homeland.

Neutral

Reports indicate differing approaches between Israel and the United States regarding potential renewed military action against Iran, with Israeli preferences for strikes on energy and infrastructure targets contrasted by U.S. reluctance to escalate. According to an Israeli source, U.S. President Donald Trump is considering a limited operation or a temporary agreement to allow negotiations and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, amid assessments that full resumption could raise domestic U.S. gas prices and affect Gulf states. Discussions in Washington include scenarios where the U.S. might pursue a contained action while requesting Israeli non-intervention to avoid broader escalation.

Western

From a US perspective, Washington prioritizes a calibrated approach to neutralize Iranian threats to the Strait of Hormuz and regional stability without triggering broader escalation that could spike energy prices or strain alliances. President Trump is weighing a limited, precision-focused military option or a temporary de-escalation agreement to reopen critical shipping lanes while preserving leverage for future negotiations. Israel advocates more decisive strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure to weaken the regime, but US strategy emphasizes controlled responses that avoid drawing allies into uncontrolled conflict.

Pro-Peace

Instead of pursuing strikes on Iranian energy and infrastructure that would devastate civilian lives through blackouts, fuel shortages, and economic collapse, U.S. and Israeli leaders should prioritize diplomatic negotiations for a temporary agreement. Such a deal could swiftly reopen the Strait of Hormuz, easing global humanitarian strains from higher energy costs without risking wider war and further civilian casualties across the region. Escalation only deepens suffering on all sides while diplomacy offers a path to de-escalation.

Global South

US and Israeli calculations over renewed strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure underscore neo-colonial efforts to dictate outcomes in the Strait of Hormuz, sidelining Tehran’s sovereignty in favor of external leverage on global energy flows. Washington’s preference for a contained operation or interim deal—driven by domestic gas prices and Gulf state concerns—clashes with Tel Aviv’s push for deeper regime-weakening action, revealing how major powers manage escalation risks without addressing root disputes. This maneuvering exposes institutional failures in multilateral forums, leaving non-aligned nations exposed to the economic fallout of great-power energy politics.

Actors involved

Iran

Sources

  • Itamar EichnerBy Itamar Eichner

    Israel would like to see fighting in Iran resume with strikes on energy and infrastructure targets that would significantly weaken the ayatollahs’ regime. But at this stage, Israel and the United States appear to see things differently. President Donald Trump is simply not eager

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIranRussiaChina
1 source

According to the semi-official Mehr News Agency, more than 3,700 cargo trucks are reportedly stalled at Iran’s borders with Turkey and Pakistan, with truckers alleging delays of up to 20 days amidst extreme heat and logistical shortages. Coinciding with a reported nearly 30% decline in non-oil exports to $15 billion, these trade disruptions occur against the backdrop of a US naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and recent cross-border attacks affecting Iraq-Saudi Arabia pipeline operations.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSIranProxyUN
1 source

Pakistan’s Defence Minister stated that the country is prepared to activate the Mecca defence pact with Saudi Arabia and Turkey amid intensifying Houthi attacks on the kingdom. While Islamabad emphasized its commitment to protecting Saudi Arabia and its holy cities, Houthi officials disputed claims of targeting Mecca, asserting that their operations are limited to Saudi oil facilities and military bases.

Location: Mecca
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranProxyChina
1 source

Analyst Mark Almond argues that Houthi drone strikes on Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline and Red Sea shipping routes pose a significant threat to global supply chains. While the Houthis state they are targeting only Saudi forces and their proxies, the article notes that confidence in this limitation is currently low.

Location: Strait of Hormuz
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

A UN fact-finding mission reported having reasonable grounds to believe U.S. forces conducted strikes on a school in Iran that officials said killed more than 150 people, while also alleging Iranian authorities committed crimes against humanity during recent protests.

The report is being submitted to the UN Human Rights Council, and while U.S. officials stated their operations complied with the law of armed conflict, Iran has rejected allegations of systematic rights violations.

Location: Iran