Former President Donald Trump has ordered a renewed campaign of strikes against Iran, effectively ending a ceasefire agreement reached less than a month ago, raising concerns about escalating conflict in the Gulf and its potential impact on the U.S. midterm elections scheduled for November.

The memorandum of understanding (MoU), signed on June 17, was intended to establish a 60-day ceasefire to facilitate negotiations focusing on Iran’s nuclear program, while allowing Tehran to reopen the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz. The strait, which had been closed by Iran in response to U.S. and Israeli military actions, is critical for global energy supplies, handling around 20% of worldwide energy exports prior to renewed hostilities earlier this year.

Under the terms of the MoU, Iran was to receive sanctions relief, including the right to export oil and access to frozen assets, in exchange for reopening the strait. However, the agreement quickly unraveled. Within days, Iran launched attacks on commercial vessels belonging to Gulf states using a shipping lane protected by the U.S. Navy near Oman. Tehran has opposed the shift from traditional shipping routes close to its coast, which allowed Iran to impose what Washington and its allies have labeled as illegal tolls.

Analysts have attributed the breakdown of the ceasefire to conflicting interpretations of the MoU, which did not explicitly address shipping lanes. Some suggest poor U.S. negotiation contributed to the confusion. Others assert that the collapse was a calculated move by both sides. Vali Nasr, professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, argued that Trump intended the ceasefire as a temporary tactic to undermine Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz before pushing for stricter nuclear concessions. Iran, in turn, sought to use the ceasefire period to gain economic reprieve while strengthening its strategic position.

Experts have warned that the renewed conflict risks widening into a large-scale war that could involve a land invasion of Iranian territory, a development that may prolong U.S. military engagement and contradict Trump’s earlier criticisms of prolonged Middle East wars. Nate Swanson, a former U.S. State Department and White House adviser on Iran, described the escalation as a risky gamble unlikely to achieve its intended goals.

The timing of the renewed hostilities has sparked debate about their political implications ahead of the upcoming midterm elections. Some analysts, including Curt Mills, executive editor of a magazine promoting isolationist U.S. policies, view the move as detrimental to Republican electoral prospects, given widespread voter opposition to prolonged foreign conflicts and concern over inflationary pressures caused by disrupted oil markets.

Compounding the situation is reported turmoil within the Trump administration’s foreign policy team. Observers note a lack of Iran experts, partly resulting from personnel changes attributed to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and reliance on Trump’s inner circle including Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, and Vice President JD Vance—figures described as lacking deep regional expertise. This absence of specialized knowledge has been identified as a factor in misreading Iran’s strategic calculations.

Analysts highlight Iran’s willingness to bear significant risks by leveraging control over the Strait of Hormuz to exert pressure on Gulf states and the global energy market. Alex Vatanka, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, emphasized Tehran’s resolve to use the strait as a tool to counter U.S. and allied demands, contrasting this with Trump’s apparent underestimation of Iran’s strategic posture.

The renewed violence underscores the fragile nature of diplomacy in the Gulf region and the challenges of managing tensions between Iran and the United States amid shifting political and economic pressures on both sides.