The ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran has eroded over the past week, and according to an analysis by the Wall Street Journal, the reason for the breakdown is “not exactly surprising” and involves a central “flaw in the MOU.”
According to the Journal, “The root of the dispute is Paragraph 5, which says Iran will make arrangements to restore shipping through the strategic waterway and then work with Oman to determine how to administer it in the future. But it also includes an Iranian pledge to ensure safe passage and remove military obstacles such as mines.” The key problem, says the Journal, involves contradictory interpretations of that point.
As the Journal explains, “Trump administration officials saw that clause as unlocking the strait, the main accomplishment of the president’s deal. Iranian hard-liners, however, have used it to push a maximalist interpretation that gives the Islamic Republic exclusive control over the waterway as a key source of leverage.”
But the U.S. and its allies in the Gulf oppose Iranian hegemony over the strait, as it would provide the regime with substantial control over one of the world’s most vital oil and gas routes. And according to the Journal, “The language of the deal has left the two sides fighting over that point rather than making progress on a final agreement on Tehran’s nuclear program.”
“This gap in interpretation is wide, baked into the deal, and not exactly surprising,” explained Israeli geopolitical analyst Michael Horowitz. “Washington has tried to convince Tehran that compliance would be more profitable, but this framing misses the point. Iran’s behavior isn’t driven by financial motives but by security concerns and bargaining leverage. It’s a power dynamic.”
The MOU is breaking down after three weeks, over the course of which traffic through Hormuz has remained “stunted.” According to the Journal, “Crossings fell to 25 on Wednesday amid the U.S. and Iranian exchanges of fire, from 49 the day before, according to ship-tracking company Kpler. More than 100 ships crossed each day before the war.”
Tehran has maintained that “it will work out arrangements for future management of the strait with its weaker neighbor across the waterway, Oman.” Per the Journal’s analysis of the MOU text, “The language of Paragraph 5 nods at those claims…The parties agreed, seeing the language as necessary to close the deal but figuring they could assert their interpretations afterward, the mediators said. Once the deal was signed, the Revolutionary Guard pushed Iran’s civilian government toward a maximalist interpretation that Iran should be in charge.”
The Journal spoke with a U.S. official familiar with negotiations, who admitted that Paragraph 5 has been “problematic” and that the two countries are on “different planets” when it comes to interpreting it.