Violence has once again flared up between the US and Iran, and a Wall Street Journal analysis suggests it stems from a single fuzzy paragraph in their ceasefire deal. Paragraph 5 of the memorandum of understanding, meant to get tankers moving again through the Strait of Hormuz, says Iran will "make arrangements" to restore safe passage for ships, clear mines, and then work with Oman and other coastal states to determine how the strait will be run. (See the full text at NPR.) Iran's hard-liners point out that the paragraph calls for Iran, not the US, to make these arrangements, and they read it as a green light to assert de facto control of the waterway.
Even Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, not considered to be a hard-liner, made a similar point, notes Al Jazeera: "This responsibility rests on the Islamic Republic of Iran," he said. "There is no other party or state in this respect. This is totally clear under the memorandum of understanding, and any intervention or any unilateral action will result in exacerbating the situation and also delay the reopening of the strait." The US, however, says it never intended for the deal to result in what the Journal calls "Iranian hegemony" over the strait. One key point of contention: Tehran insists that ships continue to use a northern corridor of the waterway, rather than an alternative route near Oman, and when it attacked ships for not doing so, the US retaliated militarily.
"This gap in interpretation is wide, baked into the deal, and not exactly surprising," Michael Horowitz, an Israeli geopolitical analyst, tells the Journal. "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." A US official tells the newspaper that the two sides are on "different planets" when it comes to their interpretations.
,
uBlock 
,
and
Ghostery 
)
