By Karan Thapar

We’ve reached a point where questions about the Gulf war seem more significant than the answers we have. It’s even arguable that neither side knows what they might be. They’re reacting to each other. So let’s see what those issues tell us.

Is the war about to re-start? Trump has tweeted that “in no uncertain terms” the ceasefire is over. He’s reimposed the US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and revoked sanction waivers on Iranian oil. Iran has been subjected to daily strikes. Next week Trump threatens to attack its power plants and bridges. Energy installations, he says, will follow thereafter.

For its part, Iran has taken to attacking ships attempting to cross the Strait on what it considers unauthorized routes. It’s now said the Strait is closed for the foreseeable future. It’s also striking military targets in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and Jordan.

How long can both sides continue this way without full-fledged war becoming inevitable? The probable truth is neither side wants it though their rhetoric suggests they’re prepared for it.

The problem arises out of the fact Trump wants to be seen as a winner when, in fact, he is not and Iran wants to ensure its claims over the Strait are recognized, which is very difficult for Trump and, indeed, the rest of the world to accept.

However, both sides face a dilemma. Trump’s is the more obvious. If he opts to renew the war his hopes of resolving the Iran nuclear issue could be dashed. On the other hand, if he restrains himself to secure a peace deal he will have to accept Iran’s control of the Strait. Neither of them are welcome options for him.

On the other hand, Iran has possibly overplayed its hand. The Memorandum of Understanding gave it the right to “make arrangements using its best efforts” for safe passage through the Strait. It did not give it the right to impose authorized and non-authorized routes. Iran’s insistence that ships can only use designated passageways identified by itself and not passageways on the Oman side is a clear breach.

In insisting on this Iran has put at risk not just the sanction waivers for the sale of its oil but the unfreezing of its assets and the $300 billion reconstruction fund. Why is it doing this? Is its authority over the Strait more important than what it stands to lose? Iran seems to believe it is.

Which brings us back to the question with which we started: Where do things stand? One gets the impression Trump is prepared to carry out one-off strikes but he’s hesitant to go back to war. Iran, on the other hand, appears to be more willing to risk or, at least, provoke a second round of fighting. It believes it survived the first and can only be strengthened by the second. But that critically depends on how devastating the second could be.

The Memorandum of Understanding gave Iran and America 60 days to negotiate a permanent peace. Half of that time is over. There’s no way it can materialize in the remaining 30 days. Both sides know that. But both also want a lasting peace. It’s just that the imprecise language of the Memorandum has created fresh obstacles. Different interpretations are the problem today.

Iranian and American domestic politics is also affecting the situation. The mid-term elections are less than four months away and Trump doesn’t want to lose control of either house of Congress. But polls suggest he could lose one. So as we approach November how will that alter his behaviour?

Iran is bolstered by the millions who turned up for Ayatollah Khamenei’s funeral. The fact his funeral procession also visited Najaf and Karbala was particularly significant. The message Iran has sent is it remains resilient, it hasn’t succumbed and it has regional support. But is Trump listening?

These are the questions we face today. We don’t have their answers. But in raising them we can attempt to understand where things stand. How things will develop depends on answers we don’t have.