US launches new Iran strikes as Tehran fires missiles across the Gulf—who controls Hormuz now?

The United States has launched a new round of attacks against Iran, prompting Tehran to respond with missiles aimed at several countries across the region, according to reporting on July 12, 2026. In parallel, Iran’s parliament speaker, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, warned Washington that “the era of unilateral agreements is over,” signaling a harder negotiating posture. Multiple outlets frame the escalation as a direct contest over authority in and around the Strait of Hormuz, with Iran asserting operational control claims that it says were enabled by a prior US-Iran agreement. The cluster also notes that hostilities have intensified in the Gulf shortly after a reported end to a ceasefire arrangement, raising the risk that the confrontation is moving from episodic strikes to sustained pressure. Strategically, the dispute is no longer only about retaliation; it is about leverage over one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints and the political signaling value of striking regional capitals and partners. The US appears to be trying to constrain Iran’s ability to threaten shipping and allied interests, while Iran is using missile salvos and military assertions to demonstrate that it can impose costs and shape the operational environment. Israel is described as being on a “war footing” after renewed violence, which can compress decision timelines and reduce room for diplomacy. Pakistan’s call for restraint and de-escalation, alongside references to honoring a memorandum of understanding, highlights that regional stakeholders are attempting to prevent the conflict from broadening further. Market implications are immediate and skewed toward energy security and risk premia rather than only direct supply disruption. With Hormuz at the center of the narrative, traders typically price higher insurance and security costs for Middle East crude and refined product flows, which can lift benchmark differentials and support volatility in oil futures. The escalation also raises the probability of renewed disruptions to shipping schedules and tanker routing, which tends to pressure freight rates and can spill into LNG and gas-linked pricing through expectations. While the articles do not provide numeric estimates, the direction of risk is clearly upward for crude-linked instruments and for defense and air-defense supply chains tied to Gulf security. What to watch next is whether the missile exchanges remain geographically contained to Gulf states or expand toward broader regional targets, and whether any ceasefire or channel for deconfliction is activated. Key indicators include additional statements from Iranian leadership about “unilateral agreements,” US operational tempo, and whether regional condemnations—such as those from the UAE—are followed by concrete defensive measures. For markets, the trigger points are changes in shipping insurance behavior, tanker rerouting patterns, and any visible jump in oil volatility around Hormuz. Escalation risk is highest in the next 24–72 hours if strikes continue without a diplomatic bridge, but de-escalation could emerge if parties publicly reaffirm the memorandum of understanding and establish practical communication mechanisms.

Geopolitical Implications

• 01

  A prolonged Hormuz-centered confrontation would reshape regional security architectures, strengthening air-defense cooperation among Gulf states and the US.

• 02

  The breakdown of ceasefire arrangements (as referenced) suggests diplomacy is losing ground to coercive signaling, raising the probability of sustained maritime and missile pressure.

• 03

  Israel’s readiness posture could create coupling effects between Iran-US-Gulf dynamics and Israel’s own deterrence and strike calculus.

• 04

  Pakistan’s mediation appeal indicates regional powers are seeking off-ramps, but public condemnations by Gulf states may harden bargaining positions.

Key Signals

• —Any follow-on US strike announcements and whether they target Iranian military assets tied to maritime operations.
• —Iranian statements on “unilateral agreements” and whether missile targeting expands beyond the named Gulf states.
• —Public defensive measures by Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, and Oman (air-defense activations, civil defense directives).
• —Shipping insurance premium changes and observable tanker rerouting patterns around Hormuz.
• —Whether a renewed ceasefire or deconfliction hotline is proposed or referenced by any party.