Iran has suffered from the war, but its leaders remain defiant
The prospect of an imminent agreement to end the conflict between the US and Iran again seems unlikely, with the warring sides exchanging strikes and uncompromising rhetoric.
The attacks come days after the US said it was moving into a new phase – a sweeping economic blockade against Iran and countries which trade with it.
The US aim was to force Iran to negotiate and to stop its attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. The key commercial shipping route has been effectively closed since the US and Israel started the conflict in February.
A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) the two sides signed in June and meant to result in a permanent ceasefire and a deal within 60 days has expired.
As the conflict enters its seventh month, we asked three experts for their thoughts on how it may play out.
Jason Campbell, Senior Fellow at the Middle East Institute, Washington DC
The problem is we still do not know definitively what the US strategic objectives are in Iran. The White House is persistently re-evaluating what it is willing to live with from a political standpoint.
It was assumed the military component would be enough for a quick victory and that has not had the desired effect.
What we are seeing is different levers – both military and economic – that the US is trying to pull at.
Right now, the administration appears satisfied with some form of stasis. I think they are satisfied with maintaining the blockade and with allowing some periodic targeting against Iran's capability to upset the shipping lane in the strait.
US officials are hopeful that the new sanctions will be enough to compel the Iranian regime to come to the negotiating table in a weaker position.
US forces have seemingly been able to facilitate a sufficient trickle through the Strait of Hormuz in recent days to avert an oil-price shock or a global economic collapse. But those were not the US objectives when starting the war.
My sense is that Iran is likely to demand a high price to get to a resolution, which is likely to remain politically untenable for the Trump administration.
Dr Aniseh Bassiri Tabrizi, Associate Fellow with Chatham House's Middle East and North Africa Programme, London
