The United States and Iran are locked in a sustained military confrontation, exchanging strikes and escalating threats even as back-channel diplomacy continues through intermediaries including Pakistan, Qatar and China. US missiles have struck targets across Iran in recent days, including a Revolutionary Guards naval headquarters near the Caspian Sea port of Bandar Anzali, as well as sites in the city of Ahvaz, where four people were killed. Iran, in turn, has struck US military bases in Kuwait, Bahrain and Jordan, including a deadly attack on the Muwaffaq Salti airbase in Jordan — located in the country's northwest — that killed three US soldiers. Iran's top military command has vowed to kill a US servicemember for every Iranian killed, while US President Donald Trump declared Washington "locked and loaded" and threatened "major military punishment" if Tehran continues to extend the conflict, including through Houthi rebel attacks on Red Sea shipping.

Iran's strikes have grown notably more accurate, a development analysts attribute to a combination of improved missile technology and evolving tactics. Iranian ballistic missiles now use simultaneous GPS, Chinese BeiDou and Russian Glonass navigation, and some carry steerable warheads that adjust their trajectory during descent, making them resistant to electronic jamming. Tactics have also shifted toward smaller, coordinated salvoes accompanied by drone diversions — a method observed in Russia's war in Ukraine. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told Congress that China and Russia were providing some assistance to Iran, though Trump himself said he had received personal assurances from Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin that they would not sell weapons to Tehran. Analysts are divided: some note that commercial satellite imagery was sufficient for Iran to identify static targets at US bases, while others point to the precision of strikes on CIA facilities as raising deeper questions.

The military exchange is unfolding against a backdrop of intensive diplomatic activity. Pakistan is said to be exploring a path back to negotiations, following a push initiated by China, with exploratory talks held during a visit by Iran's interior minister to Islamabad. Qatar has called on all parties to implement the terms of a memorandum of understanding reached between Washington and Tehran in June, including guarantees of freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. China, whose trade interests are directly threatened by closures of both Hormuz and the Red Sea, has backed Pakistan's mediation efforts. Trump himself said Iran was getting "more and more serious" about talks, though fighting continues.

Inside Iran, the prospect of an even deeper US military intervention — including a potential ground operation — has opened a painful public debate. US military planners have drawn up options for limited ground operations, possibly targeting strategically important islands such as Kharg, which handles a large share of Iranian oil exports. Iranians interviewed across different backgrounds expressed a wide range of views: some said they would take up arms to defend their country regardless of their feelings about the government; others said that after nearly 50 years under the Islamic Republic, they had reached a point where almost any change felt worth considering. A full-scale US invasion is widely seen as unlikely given Iran's size, terrain and military capacity to sustain a prolonged conflict.

Strategic analysts argue the confrontation has already exposed the limits of American military dominance. The spread of low-cost precision drones and ballistic missiles has given a mid-sized power like Iran meaningful leverage over global energy and shipping routes without needing to defeat the US in direct battle. Iran retains an estimated 70 percent of its ballistic missile capability despite previous claims from Washington that Tehran's arsenal had been crippled. With US stockpiles of Patriot and THAAD interceptors significantly depleted after a 38-day US-Israeli air campaign earlier this year, the strain on American and Gulf air defences is real. Analysts from multiple think-tanks suggest that neither side can easily convert military pressure into durable political outcomes — and that the shape of any eventual settlement will depend less on battlefield success than on each side's ability to manage the economic and diplomatic costs of a protracted conflict.