Escalating Gulf Tensions Suggest Vague US-Iran Memorandum Fails to Prevent Conflict

A sudden surge in hostilities in the Persian Gulf, occurring just ten days after the United States and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) intended to de-escalate conflict, threatens to return both nations to the brink of war.

The ambiguity of the agreement’s language appears unable to withstand conflicting interpretations, leaving proponents of the deal within Tehran in a vulnerable position. Criticism is mounting even beyond hardline circles, with growing arguments that the Iranian government should never have agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

The 14-point document utilized intentionally broad terminology regarding two highly sensitive issues: the ceasefire in Lebanon and the navigation of the Strait. The intention was to allow trust to build over time; however, the agreement is rapidly disintegry as both sides accuse the other of violations.

In Lebanon, the situation is complicated by the existence of two conflicting ceasefire frameworks.

The first framework, outlined in the memorandum and discussed during the Lucerne talks involving US Vice President JD Vance, sought to integrate Iran—and by extension, Hezbollah—into a new deconfliction mechanism. This arrangement appeared to diminish Israeli influence in the region.

Conversely, a more comprehensive ceasefire signed in Washington last Friday, overseen by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, takes a different approach by excluding both Iran and Hezbollah. This version allows the Israeli military to maintain a presence in southern Lebanon until Hezbollah is completely disarmed—a condition the militant group is unlikely to accept.

The agreement, signed by Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, also includes a clause stipulating that both parties cease hostilities in all legal forums, effectively shielding Israel from potential war crime prosecutions related to the conflict.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the development, stating, “We will stay in the area until Hezbollah’s weapons and those of the remaining terrorist groups are dismantled.”

However, the ceasefire’s viability remains highly questionable. While framed as a restoration of Lebanese sovereignty, the terms render that sovereignty conditional upon factors the Lebanese government cannot fully control.

The memorandum has also failed to resolve the maritime tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz.

The text mandates that Iran use its “best efforts” to facilitate the safe passage of commercial vessels free of charge for 60 days. However, the document failed to define “best efforts” or specify the necessary steps for clearing the strait, inadvertently reinforcing the perception of Iran as the primary controlling authority.

The agreement suggested that Iran would enter future dialogues to define maritime administration and services in coordination with other Persian Gulf littoral states, in accordance with international law.

While some interpreted this to mean Iran retains unilateral control over shipping routes, Tehran had recently been collaborating with Oman and the UN International Maritime Organization (IMO) on an evacuation plan to facilitate vessel transit.

IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Domínguez believed he had- Iran’s consent to implement a plan featuring both northern and southern routes through the strait. However, on Thursday morning, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy declared that only the northern route was permitted. Shortly thereafter, the Singapore-flagged container ship Ever Lovely was attacked while transiting the southern route.

Following the incident, Domínguez suspended the plan, stating the IMO would not jeopardize the safety of seafarers. Despite this, maritime traffic continues to navigate the dangerous strait.

The recent attack may stem from Iranian concerns that an established southern route along the Omani coast would allow the US to bypass Iran’s maritime leverage. This tension persists despite ongoing discussions between Oman and Iran regarding a long-term management solution for the strait.

Oman is expected to advocate for solutions aligned with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which prohibits arbitrary tolls but allows for the designation of sea lanes and traffic schemes. Under UNCLOS, Oman could potentially collaborate with the IMO to establish a-funded cooperative mechanism for maritime services, provided any fees are tied to specific navigational aids rather than general levies.

For the moment, however, as military hostilities resume, diplomatic and legal complexities are being overshadowed by the return of active conflict.

Source link