It was only a few days after the signing of the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran that the Strait of Hormuz turned from an item that was supposed to secure the agreement to the loophole that threatens it.
The sea corridor, which was presented as the most prominent gain of understanding, has become, according to Western coverage, an arena for testing its meaning and limits.
Read also
list of 3 itemsend of list
The British newspaper The Guardian says that the renewed exchange of strikes in the Gulf, just ten days after the signing of the memorandum of understanding, threatens to put Washington and Tehran back on the path to war.
The newspaper believes that the ambiguous language of the document did not withstand conflicting interpretations, especially in the files of the ceasefire in Lebanon and the Strait of Hormuz, as the two parties exchanged accusations of violating the terms.
Strait of interpretations
The Guardian reports that the 14-item memorandum of understanding was drafted in deliberately broad terms on the most sensitive files, including Hormuz, in the hope that time would allow for building a measure of trust and finding a practical understanding between the two sides. But the newspaper believes that the agreement has begun to erode under the pressure of the conflicting meanings that each party attached to the text.
The newspaper reported that the document stipulated that Iran would make “its utmost efforts” to make “arrangements” to ensure the safe passage of commercial ships through the strait, without fees, for a period of 60 days.
But it noted that the memorandum did not define the meaning of “arrangements,” did not set standards for “best efforts,” and did not refer to other measures to secure or clean the passage, which left the impression that Iran is the most prominent actor in managing the Strait.
According to the Guardian, the memorandum also stipulated that Iran would hold a dialogue regarding the future management and maritime services in the strait, in consultation with the Gulf states overlooking it, and in accordance with international law and the rights of coastal states.
However, this text, as presented by the newspaper, opened the door to a fundamental disagreement: Does it grant Tehran the authority to determine the paths, or does it place it within a broader consultative framework?
Series of charges
The American magazine Newsweek says that the Strait of Hormuz has become one of the biggest obstacles to the peace process between Washington and Tehran, because the two parties mainly disagree over who has control over the movement of ships through this strategic corridor.
The magazine monitors the sequence of mutual accusations since the signing of the memorandum on June 17, saying that the agreement was intended to stop military operations, reopen the Strait of Hormuz, begin lifting the US naval blockade, and negotiate a broader agreement within 60 days.
But the magazine says that the dispute quickly emerged. On June 19, Tehran saw that renewed fighting between Israel and Hezbollah threatened the agreement, considering that the memorandum obligated the cessation of operations “on all fronts, including Lebanon.”
The next day, Iran accused Washington of acting in “bad faith,” pointing to the continued US naval presence and faltering navigation arrangements in Hormuz. Newsweek says that the escalation reached its peak after the cargo ship “Ever Lovely” was targeted near the strait. American officials held Iran responsible, and described the attack as a violation of the memorandum.
Washington responded – according to the magazine – with strikes on Iranian military facilities, including drone facilities, surveillance systems, and air defenses.
As for Tehran, Newsweek says that it rejected the American narrative, and considered that the American strikes themselves were what violated the agreement, instead of resolving differences through the diplomatic mechanisms stipulated in the memorandum.
The magazine quotes Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi as saying that Tehran does not want to allow its influence in the strait to erode, warning that attempts to redirect ships without Iran’s approval may open the door to further escalation.
American novel
On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal editorial presents a more severe reading towards the American side, as it titled its position by saying that “Iran is winning the Battle of Hormuz.”
The editorial believes that the best thing that could have been marketed in Trump’s memorandum with Iran was that it reopened the Strait, but Tehran – according to the newspaper – is now trying to “empty this clause of its content” by using force against commercial ships, Gulf states, and American bases.
The editorial says that, according to this reading, Iran wants to transform the strait into something similar to a paid or conditional crossing gate, so that Iranian foreign policy determines, ship by ship, who crosses and who does not.
The editorial also criticized what it described as the “lenience” of Donald Trump’s administration. The newspaper concludes that, from its perspective, the American president faces a choice between leaving Hormuz under pressure from Tehran or fighting to conquer it by force.
Between law and force
On the other hand, the Guardian is trying to read the crisis from a broader legal angle, saying that the Sultanate of Oman may seek to formulate any long-term solution within the framework of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which excludes the imposition of public fees on traffic.
However, it indicates that the agreement allows countries bordering the straits to define sea lanes and traffic separation systems, and also provides cooperation mechanisms to finance specific navigation services.
However, the newspaper concludes that these legal ideas are currently being marginalized, with the return of bombing and the advancement of “men of war” to the forefront.
