The U.S. struck Iranian air defense and radar systems on June 10 in what senior officials and security experts described as a limited, calibrated response to Iran's reported involvement in downing a U.S. Apache helicopter, rather than the start of a broader military campaign.

Officials emphasized that ongoing diplomatic negotiations with Tehran remain intact, characterizing the strikes as a “warning shot” intended to demonstrate a willingness to respond militarily without derailing the possibility of a negotiated agreement.

Vice Adm. Robert Murrett (Ret.), professor of practice of public administration and international affairs, tells Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, he views the operation primarily as a limited defensive action rather than a signal of broader escalation.

He points to U.S. Central Command's characterization of the strikes as “proportional,” arguing that such language is significant because it indicates an effort to contain the confrontation rather than expand it.

In a CBS News interview, Murrett says, “We're in the midst of a ceasefire with a very big asterisk after it. Kind of a middling between a ceasefire and open hostilities just based on all that's happened since April 8th when the ceasefire began.

“I think the reason people are still using that term [ceasefire] is that both sides want to be able to have military action and parallel diplomatic efforts. They don't want to have ceasefire violations that are so significant that they will completely derail the diplomatic negotiations that are ongoing just about every day,” says Murrett.