The memorandum of understanding signed by the United States and Iran in June aimed to defuse the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz, but its ambiguous language has led to conflicting interpretations between the two nations.
A key clause in the 14-point agreement, located in the fifth paragraph, reads:
Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only
U.S. officials interpret this as ensuring the Strait remains fully accessible for commercial traffic, while Iran argues it grants them authority to dictate shipping routes, allowing them to collect fees near their territorial waters.
Notably, the agreement lacks a guarantee for safe passage through any specific section of the Strait. Iran, leveraging its regional influence, insists on retaining control over navigation terms, with fee discussions deferred to future negotiations.
Recently, President Trump initially proposed, then withdrew, a plan to charge fees for U.S. security operations in the Strait, a stance even his advisors cautioned against.
Experts note that such ambiguities are not uncommon in diplomatic texts, yet the vagueness here allows both sides to claim validity for their stance. As Michael Ratney, a former U.S. ambassador, observed, “No one should be surprised that Iran views this as explicitly granting them a lasting role in controlling passage through Hormuz.”
