Military confrontation between the United States and Iran has sharply escalated despite the signing, on June 18, of a memorandum of understanding between the parties. An investigation by Al Jazeera showed that the main reason behind the collapse of the “truce” was disagreements over how to interpret its provisions, as well as rapidly unfolding events in the area of the Strait of Hormuz. Political contacts continued, but they failed to prevent a slide toward the most dangerous scenario since the beginning of mediation efforts.
There emerged directly opposite accounts of what triggered the escalation. Former Pakistan Foreign Ministry press secretary Muhammad Abdul Basit believes the point of no return was Iran’s attack on Saudi and Qatari oil tankers. Former commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Kanaani Moghadam, by contrast, claims that the IRGC controls the strait based on the powers set out in the memorandum. In turn, a spokesperson for the US Central Command, Timothy Hawkins, accused Iran of “unprovoked” attacks on seven merchant vessels, in which there are dead, injured, and missing.
On July 6, near the coast of Oman, south of the Strait of Hormuz, a series of attacks took place on three vessels: a Qatari liquefied natural gas tanker, a Saudi oil tanker, and a ship flying a Liberian flag. Despite emergency communications channels provided for in the memorandum, Iran opted to escalate. In response, the United States carried out strikes on Iranian coastal defense facilities, rocket and drone storage, as well as naval capabilities. The IRGC retaliated with attacks on Persian Gulf states, including Oman, which had served as a mediator.
A diplomatic scandal erupted in Oman. Kanaani Moghadam said the IRGC has “evidence” that American aircraft and missiles were launched from bases located on the territory of the Sultanate. US Central Command categorically denied this, assuring that the Iranian attacks on Gulf countries “did not affect” the operational capabilities of American forces. Notably, on July 11, talks were held in Muscat to establish rules for navigation through the strait, but a few hours later the IRGC struck Oman’s Musandam province—right at the place of the talks.
A sticking point was the memorandum’s fifth article. Tehran interprets it as granting Iran control over the Strait of Hormuz, while Washington insists that it requires Iran to stop threats to international shipping. Kanaani Moghadam said Iran provided a “safe corridor” for vessels to pass through the strait, and that those who chose the southern route along Oman’s coasts faced danger due to mines. In response, Hawkins emphasized that shipping continues as normal and commercial vessels cross the strait freely.
Pakistan’s mediation efforts did not stop. Abdul Basit said the chief of staff of the Pakistan Army, Asim Munir, had been in contact with Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and the speaker of parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. The diplomat expressed confidence that a temporary ceasefire could be reached in the coming days. However, the situation remains extremely volatile.
The memorandum has effectively lost its meaning. Kanaani Moghadam called it “dead,” because three key Iranian conditions have not been met: control over Hormuz, the release of frozen Iranian assets, and a ceasefire in Lebanon and other regions. Abdul Basit warned that the collapse of the agreement would plunge the region into “free fall,” the consequences of which would be hard for any side to withstand. In recent days, the US has intensified strikes on Iranian territory, and Tehran has responded with attacks on ships, facilities, and bases it considers to be American, in different countries of the region. On July 8, President Donald Trump announced a “termination of the interim agreement” after Iran hit three vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. The conflict has already led to the deaths of at least two US service members in Jordan.
Comments on the news
- What role does the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) play in Iran’s political and economic system, and why do its actions often shape the country’s foreign policy? — The IRGC is not just a military force but a key political and economic player: it controls major sectors of the economy (energy, construction, telecommunications) through a network of foundations and companies under its control, which gives it autonomy from the government. Its influence on foreign policy is due to direct subordination to the Supreme Leader, as well as involvement in proxy forces abroad (for example, Hezbollah in Lebanon, militias in Syria and Yemen), making it the main tool for implementing Iran’s regional strategy.
- Why is the Strait of Hormuz considered one of the world’s most strategically important transport arteries, and how does Iran use its geographic position to exert pressure? — About 20% of global maritime trade in oil and gas passes through the strait, making it a critical hub for global energy supply. By controlling the north coast of the strait, Iran periodically threatens to block it or conducts military drills to pressure the international community, especially under sanctions or during negotiations over the nuclear program.
- Which specific Iranian assets were frozen, in which countries they are located, and how does this relate to the sanctions regime against Iran? — The assets in question amount to several billion dollars frozen in South Korea (about $6 billion, from proceeds of oil sales), Iraq (funds in accounts for gas and electricity deliveries), Luxembourg, and other European countries. These assets were frozen under unilateral US sanctions (for example, after the withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018) and serve as leverage in negotiations, while their release often becomes a condition for humanitarian deals or partial easing of sanctions.
- What regional conflicts (for example in Lebanon, Syria, or Yemen) are implied by “ceasefire,” which Iran calls one of the memorandum’s conditions, and how is Tehran involved in these conflicts? — The reference is to ongoing or frozen conflicts in which Iran supports allied forces: in Lebanon—through Hezbollah (an armed group and a political party participating in clashes with Israel); in Syria—through support for the Assad government (the IRGC and militias); in Yemen—through assistance to the Ansar Allah movement (Houthis) in a war against the Saudi-led coalition. Tehran uses these proxy forces to expand its influence, and ceasefire talks in these areas are discussed in the context of broader regional understandings, where Iran demands recognition of its role and reduced pressure.
Full version: من التفاهم إلى المواجهة.. كيف انهارت الهدنة واشتعلت أزمة هرمز من جديد؟