With the U.S. and Iran trading attacks and skirmishing over who controls the Strait of Hormuz, their 60-day ceasefire lies in tatters. Both would be wiser to refrain from further escalation and remember why they need that final agreement.

The recent bout of violence flared up when Iranian forces struck several commercial vessels heeding U.S. encouragement to hug the coast of Oman as they transited the strait rather than seek authorization to sail through Iranian waters. The U.S. has retaliated by reimposing oil sanctions, blockading Iranian ports and launching a barrage of deadly airstrikes. Iran has responded with its own attacks on U.S. military facilities in the region, which have killed at least three U.S. service members. The White House is reportedly considering options to expand its campaign, including by deploying ground troops.

The motivations driving both sides seem clear. Iran sees administrative control over the critical waterway — and the potential to exact revenue by imposing transit fees — as a key point of leverage and deterrence. For the same reason, the U.S. and its allies in the Persian Gulf are loath to cede even symbolic control over the strait. Whether by design or incompetence, the ceasefire agreement left the issue vague. In theory, the two sides could’ve exploited that ambiguity as cover to pursue a broader rapprochement; instead, they’re using force to assert their interpretation of what’s been agreed.

Iran may have fired the first shot this time. But the White House needs to recognize that its blunders led to this predicament. The war launched at the end of February has been an unmitigated failure. The U.S. has spent tens of billions of dollars, depleted critical munitions, disrupted the global economy and sacrificed the lives of at least 17 service members so far without bringing a deal to contain the Iranian nuclear program measurably closer. It’s given Iran both incentive and a road map to control the strait. And it’s shown that neither bombing alone nor sanctions are sufficient to sway the regime, at least not on any timeline that American voters seem likely to accept. The administration would’ve been wiser to cut its losses sooner; there’s no reason to believe a return to full-scale fighting now will yield better results.

Before anything else, the U.S. needs to decide what its strategic goals are. The first priority remains a nuclear deal. While the details will require hard bargaining, the broad outlines are clear: removal or down-blending of Iran’s near-weapons-grade uranium, limits on enrichment, and intrusive international inspections. Threats such as Iran’s missile arsenal and proxy network will need to be addressed regionally. Meanwhile, rather than threatening to charge Gulf allies for U.S. military support, the administration ought to be assembling a broad coalition to make clear that extortionate tolls won’t be tolerated — and that any attempt to impose them will only deepen Iran’s isolation.

For its part, the Iranian regime shouldn’t mistake survival for victory. The economy is a shambles; as much as 40% of the population may be living in poverty. The huge crowds that turned out for slain Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s funeral can’t disguise the fact that most Iranians still loathe their government. Only a final agreement that unlocks sanctions relief and reconstruction money will provide the resources needed to stabilize the country. Shipping fees would likely generate negligible revenue by comparison — and, in the meantime, will accelerate efforts to develop alternate routes for the Gulf’s oil and gas exports. In striving so hard to prove it won the war, the regime risks losing the peace.

Any deal isn’t likely to end the decades-long rivalry between the U.S. and Iran. For both nations, though, it would be far preferable to open war. They should get back to forging one.

____

The Editorial Board publishes the views of the editors across a range of national and global affairs.

©2026 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com/opinion. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.