US-Iran firefight shatters the illusion of a ceasefire! Iran’s Revolutionary Guards carry out a real strike on US military bases, and the “jurisdictional battle” over the Strait of Hormuz drives up the energy shutdown/supply-disruption premium.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran announced early on June 27 that it had struck multiple U.S. military positions in the Middle East in response to a U.S. airstrike on Iran's Sirik region on June 26. According to CCTV News, this is the first time the U.S. has used force against Iran since the signing of the memorandum of understanding between the two countries.

The direct trigger for this round of conflict was Iran's use of a one-way attack drone on June 25 to strike a commercial vessel sailing under the Singapore flag and leaving the Strait of Hormuz along the coast of Oman. The U.S. then dispatched warplanes on the 26th to strike Iran's missile and drone storage facilities and coastal radar positions, causing explosions in the Sirik region. Iran's Tasnim News Agency, citing local sources, reported that several explosions occurred around 11:30 p.m. local time on the 26th in the Sirik region, and Iran's state television, citing informed sources, said "two projectiles" hit a communications tower in the area.

The two sides then engaged in a fierce war of words. The IRGC issued a strongly worded statement, while U.S. Vice President Vance issued a warning of force. Meanwhile, the issue of control over navigation rights in the Strait of Hormuz has evolved from a diplomatic dispute into a legal battle where both sides hold opposing views, directly affecting global crude oil supply expectations and shipping safety assessments.

Iranian media: Iranian armed forces strike multiple U.S. positions in the Middle East

According to Xinhua News Agency, Iran's Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) reported on the 27th that the IRGC stated that it had struck multiple U.S. deployment positions in the region.

The IRGC said that after Israel violated the ceasefire agreement in southern Lebanon, the U.S. once again broke its promises a few hours ago, using various pretexts to launch airstrikes on Iran's coastal areas over the passage of a violating vessel on an unauthorized route in the Strait of Hormuz. In response to this aggression, the IRGC Navy struck U.S. positions in the region.

U.S. military: Has struck Iran in response to the attack on the commercial vessel

According to Xinhua, the U.S. Central Command issued a statement on the 26th saying that the U.S. military struck Iran that day in response to an attack on a commercial vessel transiting the Strait of Hormuz the previous day.

The statement said that U.S. warplanes on the 26th struck Iran's missile and drone storage facilities and coastal radar positions. Earlier, on the 25th, Iran used a one-way attack drone to strike a cargo ship sailing under the Singapore flag and leaving the Strait of Hormuz along the coast of Oman.

The statement accused Iran's actions against the commercial vessel of violating the ceasefire agreement and said the U.S. military would continue to provide coordinated safety and support for commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. military would maintain its presence and vigilance to ensure the implementation and continued effectiveness of the agreements reached between the U.S. and Iran.

According to Iran's Tasnim News Agency early on the 27th local time, the U.S. violated the ceasefire agreement and the memorandum of understanding with Iran by attacking the Sirik region. The report, citing local sources, said several explosions occurred around 11:30 p.m. local time on the 26th in the Sirik region of Hormozgan province.

High-level confrontation: Ceasefire agreement becomes a battlefield of conflicting claims

After the exchange of fire, senior officials from the U.S. and Iran quickly engaged in a war of words, with the focus of dispute centered on "who first violated the ceasefire agreement."

Ibrahim Azizi, Chairman of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee of the Iranian Islamic Consultative Assembly, posted on social media on the 27th with direct wording: "The U.S. has once again attacked Iran in the middle of negotiations. The U.S. President (Trump) has no commitment whatsoever to the principles of negotiation and the ceasefire agreement." He also warned that "the game of shifting blame no longer works" and that the U.S.'s "reckless violation of the ceasefire will, as always, lead to their retreat and regret."

U.S. Vice President Vance responded on social media: "Iran signed the ceasefire agreement, and we kept our word. If they have issues with how the memorandum of understanding is being implemented, they can call and communicate directly. But if they resort to violence, they will face a forceful response."

The logic of the two sides' statements is completely opposite: Iran believes the U.S. airstrike came first, which is a breach of the ceasefire; the U.S. believes Iran's attack on the commercial vessel came first, and the airstrike was a legitimate response. This "each insists on their own version" situation has essentially rendered the ceasefire agreement impotent.

Information warfare: Fake statements spread on social media

Alongside the military conflict, a parallel information war has unfolded.

According to CCTV News, on the 27th local time, the head of the Public Relations Department of the IRGC publicly stated that several "IRGC statements" circulating on social media recently were forgeries and not issued by the IRGC.

Notably, Iran's Student News Agency (ISNA) reported early on the 27th that the IRGC said it "foiled the U.S. attack on Sirik Island, forcing the invading forces to retreat." However, the report was subsequently deleted.

The spread of forged statements and the deletion of official reports, combined with the respective characterizations by both sides, make it more difficult for outsiders to judge the actual scale and outcome of the conflict.

Legal dispute: The question of control over the Strait of Hormuz

The underlying dispute of this conflict points to the ownership of navigation management rights over the Strait of Hormuz.

The IRGC explicitly cited legal grounds in its statement: "According to Article 5 of the Iran-U.S. Memorandum of Understanding, the management of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz is the responsibility of Iran." Based on this, Iran considers the U.S. airstrike, under the pretext of a "violating vessel traveling on an unauthorized route," to be a direct violation of that clause.

The U.S. Central Command's position is the opposite. Its statement said the U.S. military would continue to provide coordinated safety and support for commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz and "maintain presence and vigilance to ensure that the terms of the agreements reached with Iran are complied with and remain in effect."

The fundamental contradiction between the two positions is: Iran claims management rights over the Strait's navigation and the right to take action against "violating vessels"; the U.S. claims the right to escort commercial vessels and characterizes Iran's interception as a breach of the agreement. This legal divergence means similar conflicts could structurally recur within the framework of the agreement.

The IRGC's statement ended with a clear warning: "Likewise in the future, if aggression occurs again, the scale of our response will be greater than this time."

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's most important crude oil transport routes. This substantial armed confrontation between the U.S. and Iran near the strait directly impacts market expectations for the safety of this waterway.

The escalation of the conflict brings market pressure on three levels:

Crude oil: The U.S.-Iran exchange of fire re-introduces the "risk premium of strait closure" into pricing. If the conflict persists or escalates, insurance costs and diversion costs for tankers transiting the strait will rise, creating expectations of supply-side disruptions.

Shipping: The drone attack on the Singapore-flagged commercial vessel is a direct threat to international shipping safety. Shipping companies will reassess the risk profile of the Strait of Hormuz route, and war risk insurance premiums face upward pressure.

Safe-haven assets: The escalation of the U.S.-Iran conflict and doubts about the enforceability of the ceasefire agreement increase geopolitical risk sentiment, strengthening the demand logic for safe-haven assets such as gold.

Risk Warning and Disclaimer

        Market risk: Investment involves risk. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not take into account the specific investment objectives, financial situation, or needs of individual users. Users should consider whether any opinions, perspectives, or conclusions herein are suitable for their particular circumstances. Investment at one's own risk.