|
|
|
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it reserves the right to “respond to any ceasefire violation by the aggressor US army.”
The Iranian military said early Tuesday that it shot down an American Reaper drone after the Trump administration launched what it characterized as “self-defense strikes” on southern Iran, further complicating efforts to secure a diplomatic resolution to the illegal US-Israeli war.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said in a statement, carried by Iranian news agencies, that it downed an MQ-9 Reaper drone and “fired upon an RQ-4 drone and an intruding F-35 fighter jet.” The IRGC cast its actions as defensive and said it has the right to “respond to any ceasefire violation by the aggressor US army.”
Late Monday, shortly after President Donald Trump claimed peace talks were progressing, the US Central Command announced that the American military “conducted self-defense strikes in southern Iran today to protect our troops from threats posed by Iranian forces.” The strikes, according to CENTCOM, targeted “missile launch sites and Iranian boats attempting to emplace mines.”
Hamidreza Azizi, a foreign policy expert and visiting fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, noted that the Iranian side provided “a different—and more detailed—account of what happened,” saying the “exchange unfolded in several rounds over roughly 24 hours.”
“It reportedly began when US forces attacked two IRGC naval boats, killing four Iranian military personnel,” Azizi said, citing Iranian sources. “Iran responded with anti-ship missiles targeting US vessels. Iranian air defense systems then shot down at least one—some reports say three—US drones operating in the area.”
Azizi continued:
The US subsequently struck Iranian anti-ship missile launch sites and air defense systems. Iran responded again, firing multiple anti-ship missiles at U.S. vessels in the Arabian Sea.
Independent verification of these claims—including the casualty figures and the extent of damage on both sides—remains limited. The competing narratives follow the familiar pattern in which each side frames its actions as a response to the other’s aggression.
The more significant point is that the exchange has now moved through multiple rounds of attack and counter-attack within a single 24-hour period. That pattern is harder to contain than a single incident. It also raises the question of how this cycle interacts with the indirect negotiations currently underway.
Iran has publicly pushed back against Trump’s claim of an imminent peace deal, though a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry told reporters on Monday that “it is correct to say that we have reached a conclusion on a large portion of the issues under discussion.”
The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that “the two sides are working toward a memorandum of understanding that would end the fighting and lift constraints on shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz over 30 days while setting the stage for talks about Iran’s nuclear program in a second phase.”
“Relief from sanctions would depend on progress, a senior U.S. administration official said Sunday,” the Journal added. “The US is seeking clearer commitments from Iran about its nuclear program up front, while Iranian negotiators are pressing for details from the US about relief from sanctions and asset freezes, mediators said.”
Trump declared in a social media post Monday evening that Iran’s enriched uranium “will either be immediately turned over to the United States to be brought home and destroyed or, preferably, in conjunction and coordination with the Islamic Republic of Iran, destroyed in place or, at another acceptable location, with the Atomic Energy Commission, or its equivalent, being witness to this process and event.”
Iran has not formally agreed to such terms.
Samir Puri, a visiting lecturer in war studies at Kings College London, told Al Jazeera that the new US strikes on Iran create an “extremely precarious situation” for negotiators.
“Fighting and talking at the same time is quite a common thing in a negotiation at the end of a conflict that has been very intense and hasn’t been resolved,” said Puri. “The key… is to keep talking and to not allow the talks to collapse by these escalations—because these may not be the last escalations.
“What we don’t know is whether this is the storm before the calm or the calm before the storm,” he continued. “We don’t know whether these negotiations need to be sustained and to absorb these sorts of escalations for days, for weeks, for months. It could be a very long negotiation process still to come.”
Common Dream’s work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
|
|
|






