Title: Evolution of the US-Israel-Iran Conflict and Ceasefire Takes Effect: A Middle East Crisis from Battlefield to Negotiating Table
Keywords: US-Israel-Iran conflict; Middle East situation; Hormuz Strait; ceasefire talks; regional security; energy security
Introduction
According to US media, US officials said on the 17th that the US and Iran have remotely signed a memorandum of understanding which is now "in effect." This marks a new phase in the months-long US-Israel-Iran conflict: shifting from high-intensity military confrontation to political game centered on ceasefire, withdrawal, navigation safety, and subsequent negotiations.
Looking back since the outbreak of hostilities on February 28, this conflict is not a simple bilateral military clash but a composite crisis involving Israel, Iran, the US, and regional proxy forces. Its impact has extended far beyond the battlefield, affecting Hormuz Strait navigation, global energy markets, regional alliances, and international diplomatic order. The following reviews the evolution logic of this conflict based on key time points.
I. War Erupts: Military Strikes Quickly Escalate
On February 28, the US and Israel launched military strikes against Iran, killing several senior Iranian officials. Subsequently, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched Operation "True Promise-4," striking US military bases in the Middle East and Israeli targets with missiles and drones. The conflict rapidly escalated from localized attacks to cross-regional confrontation.
In early March, Lebanon's Hezbollah was also drawn into the conflict. On March 2, Hezbollah attacked military facilities near Haifa with rockets and drones. The Israeli military immediately expanded strikes on Hezbollah targets inside Lebanon. Thus, the war had a clear spillover effect from the start, with armed forces in Lebanon, Yemen, and elsewhere drawn in, rapidly lengthening the front lines.
II. Hormuz Strait: Energy Lifeline Becomes a Game Focus
On March 3, the US State Department issued consecutive evacuation orders for non-essential personnel in multiple Middle Eastern countries; the same day, Iran declared the Hormuz Strait was fully under its control. In the following weeks, the contest over navigation safety in the strait became the most dangerous variable of the conflict.
The Hormuz Strait is a vital global energy transport chokepoint. Iran repeatedly threatened to "close the strait" to turn military pressure into strategic leverage; the US aimed to "restore navigation" as a core goal to pressure Iran. On March 19, the US accelerated military deployments, and media revealed plans to seize Kharg Island to force Iran to reopen the strait. After March 21, the US directly threatened "open the strait within 48 hours or face power plant destruction," escalating conflict from military strikes to economic and infrastructure attacks.
As both sides included energy facilities, ports, and oil export hubs on their target lists, international oil prices, shipping safety, and insurance costs were significantly impacted. The sensitive global market response shows this conflict is not just a regional war but an important geopolitical event affecting the world economy.
III. Multi-front Expansion: Air Strikes, Missiles, and Proxy Forces Intertwine
From mid-March to early April, the conflict entered a high-frequency confrontation phase. Iran retaliated against US-Israeli military bases, uranium enrichment facilities, and southern Israeli targets; the US and Israel expanded airstrikes, hitting Iran's air defense, logistics, and energy facilities. Both sides escalated information warfare, propaganda, and military deterrence simultaneously, raising outside fears of "uncontrolled escalation."
Notably, the conflict featured a "multiple fronts simultaneously advancing" characteristic: Hezbollah and Yemen's Houthi forces all took action, meaning the US-Israel-Iran contradiction was not limited to the three sides but deeply tied to a regional proxy network. On March 28, the Houthis used ballistic missiles for the first time to strike sensitive Israeli targets, seen as their formal "entry into the war." Thereafter, the regional situation became further complicated, with any local friction potentially triggering a chain reaction.
From early to mid-April, the two sides engaged in exploratory contacts around "ceasefire plans" and "principled agreements," but airstrikes did not immediately stop. The US claimed "overwhelming victory" while repeatedly postponing deadlines for striking Iranian energy facilities; Iran repeatedly denied direct dialogue, calling ceasefire conditions "excessive and unreasonable." This shows that tough military actions and behind-the-scenes negotiations were proceeding simultaneously, with both sides using military pressure to gain a more favorable starting point for diplomacy.
IV. Behind Ceasefire Talks: Realistic Pressure Drove Compromise
What truly pushed the situation to change was not just political statements but the accumulation of multiple real pressures: first, continued escalation cost both sides significantly; second, threats to the strait and energy facilities pressured global markets; third, regional allies were not fully aligned, making prolonged conflict hard to sustain broad support; fourth, there were clear domestic US divisions over continued involvement in Middle East wars.
On April 8, Pakistani authorities announced that relevant parties agreed to an immediate ceasefire, marking the beginning of a phase of "fighting while talking." Subsequently, the US and Iran took indirect contacts through third parties like Pakistan and Oman, repeatedly discussing core issues including strait navigation, sanctions, withdrawal, compensation, and nuclear issues. In early May, Iran proposed a new 14-point plan, emphasizing "ending the war" rather than just extending the ceasefire, reflecting its desire to transform temporary truce into institutionalized arrangements.
At the same time, the US demands were clear: Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons, the Hormuz Strait must open, and regional mines and armed threats must be cleared. The two sides' goals were not aligned, but both realized that the cost of continuing to expand military conflict was approaching an unbearable level.
V. Memorandum Takes Effect: Can the Fragile Peace Hold?
In mid-June, the situation saw a decisive change. The US first announced a ceasefire memorandum of understanding with Iran, then confirmed both sides had remotely signed it, and it took effect. Although different versions of the signing form, location, and procedure circulate, the core fact is that the two sides finally formed a temporary institutional framework after high-pressure confrontation.
However, it must be seen that this agreement is more like "stopping bleeding" than "curing the root cause." Its main role is to prevent the war from continuing to spiral out of control, ensure the Hormuz Strait returns to or at least trends towards stable navigation, and create space for deeper negotiations on nuclear issues, sanctions, and regional security architecture.
But in the long term, risks remain. First, whether the ceasefire will be strictly implemented by all sides is uncertain; any local attack could break the fragile balance. Second, Iran's proxy forces remain active, with Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and other directions potentially becoming new friction points. Third, the core disagreement between the US and Iran—security assurances and strategic mutual trust—has not been truly resolved. Without trust, a ceasefire may simply be a pause before the next round of conflict.
Conclusion
From the airstrikes on February 28 to the memorandum taking effect on June 17, this US-Israel-Iran conflict has undergone a complete escalation process from military bombardment, regional spillover, energy deterrence to diplomatic mediation. It has not only changed the Middle East security landscape but also had far-reaching impacts on global energy transport and international political relations.
Currently, although the two sides have signed a ceasefire memorandum, it does not mean the crisis is completely over. More accurately, it is a compromise forced by war, a temporary balance formed under high costs. The real test for all sides in the future is not the signing itself but whether they can find sustainable solutions for nuclear safety, strait navigation, sanction relief, and regional security mechanisms. For the Middle East, this memorandum is just a starting point; for the international community, true peace still has a long way to go.
