Fresh Hostilities in Gulf Threaten US-Iran Agreement
Just ten days after the US and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding, new hostilities in the Gulf indicate that the document's deliberately vague wording has failed to withstand conflicting interpretations. Disputes over the Lebanon ceasefire and the Strait of Hormuz are escalating again.
The sudden eruption of fresh hostilities in the Gulf – only ten days after Iran and the United States signed a memorandum of understanding to end the conflict – threatens to put the two countries back on the path to war. It appears the intentionally opaque wording in the memorandum has been unable to withstand the pressure of conflicting interpretations, leaving supporters of the deal in Tehran on the defensive. Statements suggesting Iran's government should never have agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz are multiplying, and not only among hardliners.
The 14-point document deliberately left two of the most contentious issues – the Lebanon ceasefire and the Strait of Hormuz – broadly defined, hoping that as trust developed, a modus vivendi could be found. Instead, the agreement is crumbling, with each side accusing the other of violating its terms.
In Lebanon, the difficulty stems from two ceasefire agreements pulling against each other. The first ceasefire, mentioned in the memorandum and developed at the Lucerne talks attended by US Vice-President JD Vance, granted Iran and its proxy Hezbollah a new role: Iran was to join a deconfliction mechanism, and Israel appeared to be sidelined. The second, more comprehensive ceasefire signed by Israel and the Lebanese government in Washington on Friday under US Secretary of State Marco Rubio reverses all that by excluding Iran and Hezbollah. It allows Israel to remain in southern Lebanon until Hezbollah is completely disarmed – a condition the Shia group could never accept. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded triumphantly, saying Israel would stay until Hezbollah's weapons and those of other terrorist groups are dismantled.
The memorandum has proven equally ineffective regarding the Strait of Hormuz. It states that Iran will "make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels" through the strait with no charge for 60 days, but leaves "arrangements" and "best efforts" undefined. Iran interpreted this language as giving it sole authority to determine shipping routes. Although Tehran had been working with the UN's International Maritime Organization (IMO) and Oman on an evacuation plan offering a northern and southern route, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy declared on Thursday that ships could only use the northern route to exit the strait. Later that day, the Singapore-flagged container ship Ever Lovely was struck while transiting a southern route near Oman. IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Domínguez halted the plan, saying the organization would not put seafarers at risk. Despite the attack, ships continue to venture through the strait. Behind the incident may be Iranian fears that a southern route along Oman's coast would allow the US to end Iran's chokehold.
For now, as bombing resumes, creative legal ideas have been set aside as warships return to the center stage.
