US strikes on Iran prompt Gulf condemnations and debate over June 18 Memorandum
Bahrain and Kuwait condemned Iran’s retaliatory attacks after a second day of US strikes on Iran, while a Tehran University academic said the US is seeking to unwind a June 18 Memorandum of Understanding.
The second consecutive day of US strikes on Iran drew immediate diplomatic rebuke from Gulf states and sharpened debate in Tehran over a recent Memorandum of Understanding, escalating concerns about wider regional instability. Bahrain and Kuwait issued public condemnations of Iran’s retaliatory actions, and voices in Tehran suggested Washington may be seeking an exit from the pact signed by former President Donald Trump on June 18, 2026. The developments on June 28, 2026, mark a new and volatile phase in a conflict that regional leaders had hoped was drawing toward resolution.
Gulf states issue formal condemnations
Bahrain and Kuwait released statements condemning Iran’s reported retaliatory attacks following the US strikes on Iranian targets. Both governments framed their responses in security terms, saying the actions threatened stability across the Gulf and risked civilian harm.
Diplomatic language from Manama and Kuwait City emphasized solidarity with international norms and called for restraint, reflecting anxiety among Gulf monarchies about being drawn into a broader confrontation. Their statements followed news of damage and counter-strikes that regional officials said undermined efforts to de-escalate tensions.
Second day of US strikes widens the confrontation
For a second day, US forces carried out strikes described by officials as targeted responses to threats emanating from Iran and allied groups. The action represented a continuation of kinetic measures that Washington said were intended to deter future attacks.
US military and diplomatic spokespeople framed the strikes as limited and proportionate, but the repetition of force over consecutive days increased the risk of miscalculation. Observers noted that the tempo of operations raised questions about whether the strikes were tactical reactions or part of a broader strategy.
Tehran academic alleges US is seeking escape from June 18 MoU
Hassan Ahmadian, a Tehran University academic, told reporters and analysts that the United States appeared to be trying to “find its way out” of the Memorandum of Understanding signed by former President Donald Trump on June 18, 2026. Ahmadian suggested the strikes signaled a shift away from the agreement that had been presented as ending the war.
His comments reflect a strand of thinking in Iranian political discussion that views recent US actions as inconsistent with the spirit of the June 18 accord. Tehran’s domestic debate is likely to harden as officials and commentators scrutinize both the language of the Memorandum and the timing of US operations.
Iranian response and domestic framing
Iranian state media and official channels described the retaliatory actions as a measured response to what they characterized as unjustified US aggression. Tehran’s messaging sought to balance deterrence with a public posture that avoids overt escalation.
Within Iran, the strikes and counter-strikes have spurred political figures to stress national sovereignty while urging caution. Analysts say Tehran appears intent on signaling strength to domestic audiences without triggering a wider conflagration with coalition partners or US-aligned forces.
Regional security risks and economic ripple effects
Security analysts warn that consecutive days of strikes and retaliations heighten risks to shipping lanes, energy infrastructure, and foreign investments in the Gulf. The proximity of military activity to commercial maritime routes has prompted shipping companies and insurers to reassess exposure in the region.
Markets and logistic hubs reacted with measured concern, and regional partners called for immediate diplomatic engagement to prevent spillover. The persistence of kinetic exchanges could prolong uncertainty in an already fragile security environment, affecting trade and the cost of maritime insurance.
Diplomatic options and international responses
Diplomatic channels in capitals across the Middle East and beyond moved to urge de-escalation while offering mediation options, according to officials familiar with the contacts. European and regional governments have encouraged restraint and resumed behind-the-scenes efforts to broker talks that would reduce the chance of further strikes.
How Washington and Tehran interpret the June 18 Memorandum of Understanding will influence whether these channels can produce a sustainable pause. International actors told interlocutors they preferred a political resolution to an extended military cycle, but admitted that mistrust on both sides complicates progress.
The strikes and the subsequent condemnations from Bahrain and Kuwait underscore the fragility of a regional order that leaders had hoped recent agreements might stabilize. As diplomats press for quiet negotiations, military activity and public rhetoric on June 28, 2026, suggest the coming days will be critical in determining whether the conflict recedes or expands.
