Skip to content
You can now search across every topic, entity and event.What's new
Iran Conflict 2026
16JUN

US strikes four Iranian sites near Hormuz

3 min read
10:20UTC

Donald Trump ordered CENTCOM onto Iranian soil for the first time in 100 days of war, hours after telling reporters a deal was in its 'final throes'.

ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

Trump's first decisive Iran act in 100 days was a missile strike, not the deal he keeps promising.

CENTCOM (US Central Command) struck Iranian air-defence, radar and ground-control sites at Qeshm Island, Bandar Abbas, Sirik and Jask between 22:00 GMT on Tuesday 9 June and 01:00 GMT on Wednesday 10 June, at Donald Trump's direct order 1. For 100 days the US-Iran front had been sanctions and the Strait of Hormuz blockade while Israel did the kinetic work; this was the first American ordnance on Iranian soil since the war began 2. CENTCOM called it a "proportional response" and "self-defence", citing Iran's downing of a US AH-64 Apache helicopter, the aircraft logged "cause unknown" a day earlier and now resolved .

The strike package hit four named sites, yet Al Jazeera, citing Iranian accounts, reported the damage ran to a single telecoms tower at Sirik and two water tanks 3. The kinetic footprint stayed small while the political signal ran large. A target set of coastal air-defence and radar, not Fordow or Natanz, reads as a deliberately survivable strike: Washington demonstrated reach without forcing the all-out nuclear exchange that hitting an enrichment site would compel.

Trump had told reporters on 9 June that an Iran deal was in its "final throes" ; he ordered missiles onto Iranian territory within hours of saying it. The president who signed nothing across 100 days, no AUMF, no Article 51 notice, no nuclear memorandum, answered a stalled negotiation with ordnance rather than paper. What closed the war's defining action-versus-words gap was a missile order, not a signature, which means every legal instrument remains unsigned even now.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

The United States military launched air strikes on Iran overnight on 9-10 June 2026. The targets were radar stations and air-defence equipment near the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which a fifth of the world's oil travels. The stated reason was that an American military helicopter, a type called an AH-64 Apache, had gone down near the strait earlier that day. The US President ordered the strikes as retaliation, calling it self-defence. Iran says the radar sites were protecting its own coast. No new permission from the US Congress was sought; the President argued he already had the authority.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

The casus belli chain runs from the Apache downing through CENTCOM's 'self-defence' doctrine, but the structural precondition was set earlier: CENTCOM had already struck Iranian radar at Goruk and Qeshm Island in late May and on 31 May to 1 June , establishing a pattern of airspace-denial strikes that Iran had not yet answered with ordnance on American aircraft.

When the Apache went down, CENTCOM's existing strike precedent meant the only doctrinal response it had available was another radar-suppression package.

The deeper root cause is the 100-day gap between the start of hostilities and any signed US legal authority. Defence Secretary Hegseth's May Senate testimony converted Article II self-defence from a fallback into a named policy.

Once it became stated doctrine that no AUMF was required, the threshold for ordering strikes fell to whatever Trump defined as necessary at the moment of decision, with no congressional gate and no UN notification requirement in the administration's own legal theory.

What could happen next?
  • Precedent

    CENTCOM's 9 June strike package marks the first American ordnance on Iranian sovereign territory since the war began on 28 February, establishing a new threshold Iran now must decide whether to accept or escalate above.

    Immediate · Assessed
  • Risk

    With no Article 51 notification filed and no AUMF in place, the US legal position on the strikes rests entirely on Trump's Article II self-defence assertion, leaving the action vulnerable to challenge in any subsequent war-powers litigation or allied diplomatic forum.

    Short term · Assessed
  • Consequence

    Degrading Iranian radar and ground-control at four Hormuz-proximate sites reduces Tehran's situational awareness around the strait's chokepoint, potentially increasing Iran's reliance on IRGC missile salvos rather than air-defence coordination as its primary deterrent posture.

    Medium term · Suggested
First Reported In

Update #123 · Trump orders strikes on Iranian soil

Al Jazeera· 10 Jun 2026
Read original
Different Perspectives
G7 Leaders (ex-US)
G7 Leaders (ex-US)
Kananaskis ended without a joint communique for the first time in the body's history; Macron credited G7 pressure with speeding the ceasefire while Trump publicly denied the summit played any role. The split between US and European G7 partners over what the memorandum means for sanctions relief was the direct cause of the text failure.
Protection-and-Indemnity insurers
Protection-and-Indemnity insurers
London-based P&I mutual clubs declined to underwrite Hormuz crossings while the IRGC Strait Authority remained operational, making the passage commercially impassable regardless of the memorandum's terms. Shipping operators said they would wait weeks for on-water conditions to change before routing tankers through.
IRGC Persian Gulf Strait Authority
IRGC Persian Gulf Strait Authority
P&I mutual insurers declined to underwrite Hormuz crossings on 15-16 June while the IRGC's Strait Authority remained in operation, reducing actual transits to two vessels against a pre-war daily rate of 94. The corps' revenue-generating toll mechanism, created 5 May and collecting $1.5-2 million per VLCC in crypto, has not been stood down and cannot be dissolved by Ghalibaf's signature.
Israeli Cabinet
Israeli Cabinet
Netanyahu admitted he had not seen the memorandum's text but confirmed IDF forces would stay in southern Lebanon; Finance Minister Smotrich called for ten Beirut buildings destroyed per Hezbollah drone and National Security Minister Ben-Gvir said the agreement 'does not bind us in any way'. Israel signed nothing in Islamabad and is the central unresolved variable in the Lebanon clause.
Iranian Majlis hardliners
Iranian Majlis hardliners
Around 60 MPs signed a letter demanding Ghalibaf explain the memorandum; Paydari faction MP Sabeti said the deal violates the Supreme Leader's red lines, and MP Aboutorabi argued the document carries binding obligations 'that cannot be resolved by simply changing the name'. President Pezeshkian defended the negotiators against accusations of betrayal, confirming the fracture inside Iran's political class.
US Vice President JD Vance
US Vice President JD Vance
Vance signed on 15 June and said the memorandum was 'not conditioned on Israel withdrawing from Lebanon' while also saying it 'envisioned a ceasefire that covers both Iran and Lebanon'. The two formulations are incompatible and hand Iran's foreign minister a ready-made violation claim before Geneva.