Iran ‘Would No Longer Exist’: Donald Trump Warns After New Exchange of Attacks

US President Donald Trump has threatened further military action against Iran, warning that the Islamic Republic would "no longer exist" if Washington is forced to resume the conflict. His remarks followed fresh US strikes on Iranian targets, raising concerns over a fragile ceasefire and renewed risks to the Strait of Hormuz, a critical route for global energy shipments.

The latest escalation came after US forces said they targeted multiple Iranian military sites on Saturday. Washington described the operation as retaliation for attacks on commercial shipping in the Gulf. The confrontation has added pressure to diplomatic efforts aimed at ending a wider conflict involving the United States, Israel, Iran and Iran-backed groups in the region.

Trump warns Iran after fresh US strikes

Trump said on Truth Social that US aircraft had struck Iranian missile and drone storage locations, along with coastal radar sites. He accused Tehran of violating the ceasefire agreement again. The US president said there may come a point when Washington is "no longer able to be reasonable" and may be forced to "militarily complete the job".

His statement marked one of the sharpest warnings issued during the current phase of the conflict. It also signalled that the ceasefire framework remains unstable despite ongoing diplomatic efforts. The threat has drawn attention because any renewed escalation in the Gulf could affect oil movement, insurance costs, freight rates and broader market sentiment.

US Central Command said Saturday's strikes were linked to an Iranian drone attack on the Panama-flagged oil tanker Kiku. The vessel was reportedly carrying around two million barrels of crude. The US military said the targets included surveillance infrastructure, communication systems, air defence sites, drone storage facilities and minelayer capabilities.

Iranian media reported several explosions in the Sirik and Qeshm areas of southern Iran. Tehran described the US attacks as a blatant violation of the interim truce arrangement. Iran's Revolutionary Guards warned that if the aggression is repeated, its response would be broader, indicating that both sides remain prepared for further action.

Strait of Hormuz remains central to the crisis

The violence has again placed the Strait of Hormuz at the centre of global attention. The narrow waterway connects the Gulf with the Arabian Sea and is among the world's most important energy corridors. In peacetime, about a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas exports pass through the route.

Iran has warned vessels against entering or leaving the Gulf through the strait without permission. However, shipping has continued, with some vessels reportedly using routes not authorised by Tehran. The contest over maritime access has made the waterway a pressure point in both military and diplomatic calculations.

For energy-importing economies such as India, any serious disruption in the Strait of Hormuz can quickly become a financial concern. India relies heavily on crude imports, and changes in global oil prices can affect fuel costs, inflation expectations, the rupee and corporate margins. Even limited attacks can influence freight and insurance premiums.

Despite the latest flare-up, oil prices have reportedly fallen sharply on hopes that traffic through Hormuz would recover. That suggests traders are still weighing the possibility of containment rather than a full-scale disruption. However, markets remain vulnerable to sudden shifts if attacks on vessels increase or naval movements intensify.

Analysts have often described Iran's actions around the strait as calibrated pressure rather than an immediate push for all-out war. H.A. Hellyer of the Royal United Services Institute said Iran is likely to continue "calibrated, low-level coercive activity" around Hormuz to maintain pressure on international shipping without triggering a wider conflict.

Lebanon front complicates ceasefire efforts

The regional picture has become more complex because of developments in Lebanon. Israel launched strikes in Lebanon, while Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem rejected a US-backed agreement between Israel and Lebanon. The deal was intended to support long-term peace between the two countries, but Hezbollah called it "humiliating, shameful and a surrender of sovereignty".

Lebanon was drawn deeper into the conflict in early March after Hezbollah launched rockets at Israel in support of Iran. Israel responded with military action, including an invasion and continued strikes in the south. The fighting has repeatedly threatened to undermine US-Iran negotiations by linking the Gulf crisis with the Lebanese front.

Hezbollah has demanded a full Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted that Israeli troops will remain in the security zone they occupy until Hezbollah is disarmed. Netanyahu described the new agreement as historic and called it a blow to Iran and Hezbollah.

However, Israeli politics also showed signs of division. Far-right security minister Itamar Ben Gvir criticised the agreement as a major mistake and argued that only Israeli forces could disarm Hezbollah. The Israeli military later said it had carried out an airstrike targeting suspected militants in southern Lebanon.