Barely three weeks after signing a memorandum of understanding (MoU) intended to end hostilities, the United States and Iran are once again engaged in military confrontations in the Gulf region. The MoU, which promised "safe passage of commercial vessels" through the Strait of Hormuz, has not resolved key issues regarding control and terms of governance over the strategic waterway.

Article 5 of the MoU tasks Iran with making "arrangements using its best efforts" and initiating dialogue with Oman and other Gulf states to define the "future administration and maritime services" of the strait. However, the language is considered vague, allowing both Iran and the US to interpret commitments differently.

The Strait of Hormuz is recognized as an international strait under the transit-passage regime codified in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. This regime grants ships and aircraft of all nations continuous and expeditious passage that bordering states cannot suspend, even for security reasons.

Within the 60-day "no charge" window established by the MoU, Iranian forces struck vessels, including one in Omani waters. The US Central Command responded with strikes on multiple coastal radar, missile, and fast-boat targets. Iran declared exclusive management over the strait and briefly proclaimed it closed. Both sides have exchanged attacks on bases and military assets across the Gulf.

Additionally, former US President Donald Trump proposed imposing a 20 percent levy on shipping, described as "protection money," for securing the Strait of Hormuz.

Experts argue that the MoU's promise of safe passage settled neither who governs the strait nor on what terms, making the current escalation a logical outcome. The clause underpinning global oil traffic was written to be signed rather than effectively operated, exposing the gap between agreement and practice.

Sources