US, Iran Blame Each Other for Ceasefire Violation Amid Strait of Hormuz Tensions

Barely a week after the United States and Iran announced an interim ceasefire aimed at halting nearly four months of conflict, both sides accused each other of violating the agreement, raising fresh doubts over its durability on late Friday (local time).

The latest escalation began after a cargo ship transiting the Strait of Hormuz was struck by an Iranian drone on Thursday.

Washington blamed Tehran for the attack, calling it a clear breach of the ceasefire, and responded on Friday by launching airstrikes on Iranian military sites. According to US central command, American aircraft struck missile and drone storage facilities as well as coastal radar sites used by Iranian forces. The military later released footage of an explosion from the operation and said the strikes had concluded.

"The unwarranted aggression against commercial shipping by Iranian forces clearly violated the ceasefire," CENTCOM said, describing the operation as "a powerful response" to the attack on the commercial vessel.

US Vice President JD Vance echoed that position, insisting Washington had honoured the memorandum of understanding reached last week. "Iran signed a ceasefire agreement. We have honored it. If they have disagreements about how the MOU is being applied, they can pick up the phone. But violence will be met with violence," Vance posted on X.

Iran's version

Tehran tells a very different story. Iranian officials said the US strike targeted the area around the southern port of Sirik after Iranian forces had merely enforced shipping regulations in the Strait of Hormuz. State media, citing military sources, said several warning shots had earlier been fired toward vessels allegedly violating navigation rules, followed by the launch of two warning missiles from the nearby Karpan area toward the strategic waterway.

On Saturday, Iran's Mehr news agency quoted the head of ports in eastern Hormozgan as saying the US strike caused no damage to Sirik Port, which continued normal operations. Iran's Revolutionary Guards said they retaliated by striking locations hosting US military deployments in the region. In a statement carried by state media, the Guards warned that "any further US attacks" would draw "a broader response."

The Guards also argued that the ceasefire agreement recognised Iran's authority over ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and accused Washington of provoking confrontations to undermine that arrangement. "The United States, by provoking various fronts, sought to violate this commitment. The necessary response was given and will continue to be given. If the aggression is repeated, our response will be broader than this," the statement said.

Iranian lawmaker Ebrahim Azizi accused President Donald Trump of failing to uphold the principles of negotiation and ceasefire, saying the latest strikes demonstrated Washington's lack of commitment to the agreement.

What sparked the dispute?

At the centre of the disagreement is the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow maritime corridor through which roughly one-fifth of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas supplies pass. Following last week's ceasefire, Iran declared it would regulate shipping through the waterway and warned Gulf states against siding with Washington. The United States, however, has insisted that commercial navigation must remain free and unrestricted.

US secretary of state Marco Rubio, after meeting Gulf Cooperation Council leaders, issued a joint statement calling for "free, unconditional, and unrestricted navigation" through the Strait of Hormuz without tolls or attempts by any country to assert control. Iran's foreign ministry countered that the strait should be governed jointly by Iran and Oman, while senior adviser Ali Akbar Velayati warned that Gulf states depended on Tehran's goodwill for their security.

Signs of diplomacy with US-Israel-Lebanon deal

Even as Washington and Tehran exchanged accusations, there was a diplomatic breakthrough on another front. Israel and Lebanon signed a US-brokered framework aimed at ending hostilities between Israel and the Iran-backed Hezbollah. The agreement envisages the disarmament of non-state armed groups, a phased Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon and the restoration of Lebanese state control. Hezbollah rejected the framework, warning that attempts to enforce it could trigger civil war.

What happens next?

Neither Washington nor Tehran has indicated any intention to abandon the ceasefire altogether, but both now insist the other side violated it first. The US maintains its strikes were a legitimate response to Iran's attack on commercial shipping, while Iran argues its actions were defensive and that Washington breached the agreement by launching military strikes on Iranian territory. With both sides claiming compliance and blaming the other for reigniting hostilities, the fragile truce appears to have entered its most serious test yet.