Iran Ceasefire Collapses as US Hits Some 170 Targets

For a country that imports almost all of its oil and gas, every fresh wave of strikes in the Persian Gulf is not distant news but a line in the budget: when the Iranian coast is ablaze along a corridor that carries a fifth of the world’s oil, the price increase shows up within days at the pumps in Belgrade and Nis and on the bills of local firms. That is why the collapse of the ceasefire that Washington formalized this week hits Serbia more directly than it might first appear. President Donald Trump declared the fragile deal with Tehran dead and said the United States is preparing new strikes, formally closing an arrangement meant to restore safe shipping and open negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program.

Since Tuesday, in several separate waves, US forces have struck around 170 targets along the Iranian coast, among them in Bandar Abbas, Chabahar and Bushehr. For the latest wave, carried out on July 9, US Central Command, better known as CENTCOM, cited about 90 targets, mostly air defense systems, coastal radars and naval assets. The multi-day total is therefore well above any single statement, and Washington’s message is clear: strip Iran of the ability to threaten shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Why does Tehran refuse to sit down?

An attempt to revive talks on Saturday collapsed before it began. Iran’s Fars agency announced there would be no negotiations until Washington withdrew from the positions it took during the escalation, making the diplomatic channel conditional on a prior American concession. The US delegation, made up of Vice President Vance, Secretary of State Rubio, envoy Witkoff and adviser Kushner, was refused a direct meeting by Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi, who insisted on mediation instead.

That deadlock is more than tactical. For Iran’s leadership, sitting down under fire would signal weakness at the very moment it most needs legitimacy, while for the White House, halting strikes before any guarantee looks like a concession to an adversary that, by American assessment, already broke one deal by attacking ships. When both sides make talks conditional on the other’s move, diplomacy turns into waiting, and waiting in the Gulf usually precedes a new military phase.

A new leadership in Tehran and the role of mediators

The conflict has coincided with a changing of the guard at the top of the Iranian state. New supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei, son of the recently deceased Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said revenge for his slain father is a demand of the nation rather than a personal choice, embedding retaliation in state doctrine instead of leaving it as an option. Such rhetoric narrows his room for compromise: any step toward talks can now be read in Tehran as a betrayal of promised revenge, pushing the new leadership onto a harder line just as it tries to consolidate power.

The only open exit for now runs through mediators. Qatar and Pakistan are trying to bring both sides back to the table, drawing on channels they have used before in the region’s most sensitive files. Doha has already shown it can lower tensions when direct talks are impossible, which is why many capitals in Europe expect any pause to come from that mediation. For Serbia, which carefully balances relations with all actors and depends on imported energy, every additional day of conflict means more pressure on fuel prices and on the trade balance.

Will mediation by Qatar and Pakistan manage to halt the slide toward a wider war, or do the coming weeks hold new strikes and costlier fuel at Serbia’s pumps?