16JUN

US strikes reach Tehran on day two, ordered by phone

4 min read

10:20UTC

CENTCOM struck surveillance, communications and air-defence sites at western Tehran, Sirik and Minab on 10-11 June, widening the war inland from the coast as Trump ordered a second day verbally from the Oval Office.

← Back to Iran deal signed, but no paper to show Jump to analysis ↓

ConflictDeveloping

Key takeaway

The campaign reached the capital on its second day, ordered again by phone, with Washington calling the bombing the negotiation.

CENTCOM completed a second consecutive day of strikes on Iran across 10-11 June, hitting military surveillance, communications and air-defence sites at western Tehran, Sirik and Minab. The geography is the news: the 9-10 June strikes had stayed on the Hormuz coast at Qeshm, Bandar Abbas and Jask , and this round reached the capital. US Marine, Air Force and Navy assets ran the operation, which CENTCOM framed as self-defence against continued aggression and reported complete with no American casualties.

Donald Trump ordered it the way he ordered the first round, verbally from the Oval Office, with no AUMF, no Article 51 notice to the United Nations and no signed instrument, repeating the method even as a second day of ordnance landed . Pete Hegseth said the strikes were designed to set the terms for a deal and that Iran would be wise to take it; pressed on method, he said, "If we need to negotiate with bombs, we'll negotiate with bombs." Trump told reporters Iran "had a chance to sign a deal and survive" and should "start signing a paper."

Reading the two days together, the bombing is being run as the diplomacy rather than alongside it. The word from Washington each day has been "sign," delivered with a second strike order and an amended draft returned to Tehran. That collapses the distinction between coercion and negotiation, and it leaves Iran answering ordnance rather than a written offer.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

The United States carried out air strikes on military sites in Iran for the second day running on 10-11 June. On the first day, strikes had stayed near the coast. This second round hit sites close to Tehran, Iran's capital, a significant escalation in how far into the country the bombing was reaching. President Trump ordered the strikes in a verbal conversation at the White House. Unlike most military operations, there was no formal written authorisation from Congress and no legal notification to the United Nations. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told journalists the strikes were designed to force Iran to sign a deal, saying 'if we need to negotiate with bombs, we'll negotiate with bombs.'

Deep Analysis

Root Causes

The legal gap driving the no-AUMF pattern predates this conflict. The 2001 and 2002 AUMFs authorised force against al-Qaeda and Iraqi state actors respectively. Congress never passed an Iran-specific authorisation, and the Trump administration has relied on Article II inherent presidential war powers for every kinetic action since 28 February 2026.

The House's 215-208 War Powers Resolution on 3 June passed with the narrowest possible majority and Trump is expected to veto it. Senate cloture on a war-powers resolution fell ten votes short of the 60 required. The structural condition enabling verbal-order strikes is therefore not presidential preference alone but a Congress too closely divided to force an AUMF requirement.

Escalation

Upward and widening. The target set moved from the Hormuz coast to the capital in 24 hours. A second verbal strike order with no AUMF and no Article 51 notice hardens the pattern of force by spoken word. Hegseth's 'negotiate with bombs' framing means Washington has no threshold at which it would pause strikes to allow a negotiating response.

What could happen next?

Precedent
Two consecutive days of presidential verbal strike orders on a foreign capital without AUMF or Article 51 notice establish the pattern as a standing doctrine, not a one-off emergency measure. Any future administration would cite this as precedent for Article II air campaigns.
Long term · Assessed
Risk
Iran's strikes on Azraq, Bahrain, and Kuwait bases (ID:4075) showed the IRGC is willing to hit third-country US facilities. A third day of US strikes on Tehran-area targets raises the probability of IRGC targeting of UAE-based US assets, which would draw UAE into the conflict.
Immediate · Assessed
Consequence
Damage to communications and air-defence infrastructure at Sirik and Minab degrades the physical capacity of Bandar Abbas export operations even after any ceasefire, adding weeks to any post-deal oil supply recovery.
Short term · Assessed

Source Landscape

This story draws on mixed-leaning sources from United States and Qatar (includes United States state media)

United States

Qatar

Primary parallel: The 1999 Operation Allied Force against Yugoslavia proceeded for 78 days without a UN Security Council resolution and without a formal US AUMF, with the Clinton administration relying on NATO collective defence authority and Article II inherent powers.

The geographic escalation from Day 1 coastal targets to Day 2 capital-area targets mirrors the gradual widening of the Allied Force target set from air-defence to civilian infrastructure, a pattern that drew sustained European legal challenge at the International Court of Justice.

Counter-parallel: Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, in which the Clinton administration struck Iraqi targets for four days on presidential authority, is the domestic parallel most often cited. Desert Fox was terminated after 70 hours, partly because the House impeachment vote was imminent but partly because the narrow target set was exhausted. The current campaign has no self-limiting target set and no impeachment parallel, making the analogy weaker on duration.

Brent Crude reached $96.34 when the first strikes on the capital area were confirmed, then eased to $94.71 the following day after CENTCOM said strikes were complete . The CENTCOM 'strikes complete' line, not the IRGC Hormuz closure, drove the pullback.

This shows markets are primarily tracking US operational tempo rather than Iranian responses: a US statement that strikes have stopped reduced the immediate escalation premium more than the IRGC's closure of the world's most important oil chokepoint raised it.

The strike package at Sirik and Minab hit air-defence and communications infrastructure near the Bandar Abbas export terminal, Iran's primary tanker-loading facility. Damage to that infrastructure, if sustained, reduces the physical capacity to resume tanker operations even after a deal is signed, adding a structural lag to any post-deal export recovery.

Consensus view: Mark Cancian and Chris Park at the Center for Strategic and International Studies assessed in late May that the US had already spent roughly $25 billion on the Iran campaign, with no signed AUMF constraining the scope. On the verbal-order pattern, Cancian notes that Article II self-defence claims used for consecutive days of strikes on a foreign capital are qualitatively different from the single-strike precedent set by the Obama administration's Libya model.

Counter-view: Elbridge Colby, now at the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, holds that the Article II self-defence framing is legally sufficient because Iran's attack on a US helicopter constitutes ongoing armed attack, making a new AUMF an obstacle rather than a requirement. IRGC-aligned Iranian media argues the strikes confirm there is no legal ceiling on US escalation, and that Iran's only leverage is physical deterrence rather than legal argument.

Key tension: Whether a second day of strikes expands the Article II justification into a standing authorisation for indefinite air campaign, or whether each day of strikes requires an independent constitutional trigger, is the unresolved constitutional question.

First Reported In

Update #124 · IRGC declares Hormuz shut; US strikes again

CENTCOM / Jerusalem Post· 11 Jun 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

Caused by

US strikes four Iranian sites near Hormuz

Day-two CENTCOM strikes at western Tehran, Sirik and Minab escalated the first-day strikes on coastal air-defence sites at Qeshm, Bandar Abbas and Jask.

Occurred 9 Jun 2026

Read story →

Trump strikes Iran with no war authority

Trump's second verbal strike order without AUMF or Article 51 notice repeated and advanced the legal precedent set by his first order on 9 June.

Occurred 9 Jun 2026

Read story →

This Event

US strikes reach Tehran on day two, ordered by phone

The target set moved from the Hormuz coast to the capital, a deliberate widening of the air campaign. A second strike order issued with no AUMF, no Article 51 notice and no signed instrument hardened the pattern of force by spoken word, with Hegseth casting the bombing as the negotiation itself.

Led to

IRGC declares Hormuz shut, vetoing Iran's own deal

The IRGC closure declaration came on the same day as the second US strike day, suggesting the closure was a direct escalatory response.

Occurred 11 Jun 2026

Read story →

Trump halts strikes, Iran denies deal

Trump's stand-down of the third strike day directly responds to and halts the CENTCOM day-two strikes on Tehran, Sirik and Minab.

Occurred 12 Jun 2026

Read story →

Different Perspectives

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

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

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

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

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

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.