An Italian political analyst has characterized recent attacks on Iran’s infrastructure as part of a broader strategy of coercion rather than a failure of diplomacy. Giulio Chinappi, a researcher at the Center for Mediterranean Eurasia Studies (CeSEM), argued in an interview that the collapse of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, a ceasefire framework intended to de-escalate tensions in the region, was the result of incompatible approaches and strategic choices by Washington and Tel Aviv.
Signed as a 14-point agreement, the memorandum aimed to establish a ceasefire and provide a 60-day window to address unresolved disputes, including issues related to Iran’s nuclear program. Chinappi suggested that Tehran viewed the agreement as the start of a reciprocal process leading to an end of hostilities and removal of the blockade, safeguarding Iranian sovereignty. In contrast, the United States reportedly saw the ceasefire as a temporary measure to resume maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz while maintaining pressure on Iran to extract strategic concessions.
According to the analyst, the fundamental problem lay in differing interpretations of diplomacy. Washington and Israeli factions allegedly expected Iran to capitulate rather than negotiate as an equal, and when it became evident that Iran would not surrender its core interests, military action resumed. This strategy included renewed blockades and American airstrikes, which Chinappi described as deliberate political choices rather than unavoidable outcomes of failed talks.
The memorandum’s collapse was attributed to several structural weaknesses. Chinappi pointed to a lack of credible enforcement mechanisms and an asymmetrical arrangement where Iran was expected to comply with restrictions while the U.S. retained control over sanctions and military operations. Additionally, disagreements over sequencing—whether the cessation of aggression should precede or be contingent on Iran’s nuclear concessions—undermined the process. The erosion of mutual trust further destabilized the agreement, with Tehran accusing Washington of unilateral violations.
The role of Israel was also highlighted, with Chinappi noting that preserving Iran’s sovereignty and deterrent capabilities conflicted with Israeli strategic objectives, particularly those aimed at weakening Iran’s regional influence or achieving regime change. The failure of the agreement generally benefited political and military forces opposing compromise, allowing Israel to maintain U.S. military engagement in a conflict aligned with its interests. However, Chinappi emphasized that no genuine beneficiary has emerged, citing destabilization of energy markets, increased fuel prices, threats to navigation, and adverse humanitarian impacts throughout the region.
Regional attempts at mediation by countries such as Pakistan, Qatar, and Oman reportedly had limited effect. While these actors facilitated communication and proposal exchanges, they lacked the capacity to enforce agreements or constrain major powers, particularly regarding military blockades and attacks. The imbalance of power and the continuation of economic sanctions further complicated mediation efforts.
Chinappi also discussed the evolving nature of warfare, observing a shift toward targeting civilian infrastructure, such as ports, airports, energy facilities, and transport networks. This approach, described as hybrid or total warfare, intentionally blurs the line between military operations and attacks on economic and civilian systems. The resultant cascading effects disrupt not only military logistics but also critical services like healthcare, communication, water distribution, and industrial production, compounding the societal impact of conflict.