Hormuz reignites confrontation… Sovereignty dispute undermines US-Iranian understanding

Washington's Message

Washington – Saeed Erikat – 7/8/2026

News Analysis

US President Donald Trump announced from Turkey on Wednesday morning the termination of the sixty-day memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran, confirming that the agreement had reached its end after the recent military escalation between the two parties. Tehran quickly announced the same position, considering that the memorandum had lost its justification for continuation after it responded to American strikes with missile attacks targeting American bases in the region.

Thus, the understanding, which was seen as a temporary framework for de-escalation and opening a broader negotiation path, moved to a new phase of confrontation, bringing to the forefront the most sensitive question in the relationship between the two parties: Was the dispute about implementing the terms of the agreement, or about the nature of the security system that will govern the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz in the next phase?

Recent developments reveal that the end of the memorandum of understanding was not the result of an isolated military incident, but rather the accumulation of fundamental differences over the interpretation of its basic terms. Washington and Tehran treated the agreement as carrying different meanings, especially regarding freedom of navigation, Iran's role in securing the Strait of Hormuz, and the limits of influence it could retain during the transitional period.

From the Iranian perspective, keeping the Strait of Hormuz open does not mean abandoning its security role in the region. Tehran believes that its historical and geographical responsibility for a large part of the strait gives it the right to supervise the movement of commercial ships, including notifying it of transit operations during the sixty-day period that was supposed to pave the way for a permanent agreement.

Washington, however, adopted a completely different interpretation, considering that the concept of "open strait" means ensuring freedom of navigation for commercial ships without the need for Iranian approval or prior coordination with it. From the American perspective, Iran's role is limited to ensuring safe passage, not possessing the authority to regulate it or control its routes.

Here emerged the core of the crisis: a dispute over the text of the agreement turned into a struggle over sovereignty and influence.

For Iran, the Strait of Hormuz is not just a maritime passage, but one of its most important strategic power cards. Tehran realizes that its ability to influence global navigation gives it a deterrent card in the face of American military superiority. Therefore, it views any arrangements that reduce its role in the strait as an attempt to strip it of its most important strategic tools.

From this perspective, allowing ships to pass through the southern corridor without notifying Iran is not read in Tehran as a technical measure, but as the beginning of a change in the rules of the game, and the creation of a new navigational reality that could continue even in the event of a return to military confrontation.

In contrast, the United States believes that accepting any formula that grants Iran an exclusive or semi-exclusive role in managing navigation could set a dangerous precedent, not only for the Gulf, but for the principle of international freedom of navigation. Washington also fears that mandatory coordination with Iran could turn into indirect political recognition of its influence over one of the world's most important maritime passages.

Therefore, the battle over Hormuz is not essentially a battle over ships, but over who has the right to set the rules for maritime security in the Gulf.

Before the collapse of the memorandum of understanding, negotiations had explored a compromise formula whereby commercial ships would notify Iran and one of the concerned Gulf states of navigation before transit. This formula aimed to achieve a difficult balance between the demands of both parties: maintaining a limited Iranian role in security arrangements, and preventing that from turning into recognition of an exclusive right to manage the strait.

However, this settlement did not withstand military escalation, after Iran considered some transit operations a direct challenge to its interpretation of the agreement, while Washington saw them as a natural exercise of freedom of navigation.

It appears that the American decision to respond militarily and re-impose oil sanctions was not only aimed at responding to Iranian escalation, but also at reshaping the deterrence equation. Washington wanted to send a message that any attempt to change navigation rules or impose a new fait accompli would be met with a high cost, and that the United States is still capable of using its military and economic tools simultaneously.

However, the re-imposition of oil sanctions raises questions about the value of economic incentives in any future negotiations. Lifting restrictions on Iranian oil exports was one of the most important tools Washington used to encourage Tehran to adhere to the agreement. But if these licenses can be revoked with every crisis, importing companies and countries may lose confidence in their continuity, which reduces their practical and political value.

Here a significant paradox emerges: Washington may use sanctions to pressure Iran, but at the same time, it may weaken one of its negotiating cards if the market loses confidence in the incentives it offers.

In conclusion, the collapse of the memorandum of understanding not only signifies the failure of a temporary arrangement between Washington and Tehran but also reveals the depth of the disagreement over the future of the security system in the Gulf. The two parties differed not only on the implementation of the agreement but also on its political and strategic meaning.

The fundamental question remains: Can a new negotiation path be revived based on a clearer formula regarding the Strait of Hormuz, or has the recent escalation closed the door to any quick settlement?

The most realistic option remains to return to a formula of understanding that guarantees freedom of navigation, while at the same time preserving the interests of all parties, without granting any party unilateral recognition of control over the strait. Continued confrontation, however, could turn Hormuz from a point of negotiating disagreement into the spark of a broader regional crisis whose repercussions would be difficult to contain.

Hormuz… A battle for legitimacy before it is a battle for navigation

The Strait of Hormuz crisis reveals that the real conflict is not just about the movement of ships, but about who has the right to define the rules of the security system in the Gulf. The United States defends the principle of international freedom of navigation, while Iran believes that its geographical location gives it an undeniable security role. Therefore, the current dispute represents a confrontation over influence and legitimacy more than a technical disagreement over transit procedures. Each party fears that concessions in Hormuz could lead to a greater strategic loss in the future regional balance.

Oil sanctions… A pressure tool that may lose its effectiveness

Oil sanctions are one of the most important American pressure tools on Iran, but they need a key element to remain effective: confidence in their continuity. If markets believe that any license to buy Iranian oil can disappear with the first political crisis, companies will hesitate to enter into long-term agreements. At that point, sanctions transform from a flexible negotiating tool into a pressure policy with limited impact. Therefore, the use of incentives and sanctions requires a delicate balance so that Washington does not lose one of its most important cards in any future negotiations.

End of the memorandum does not mean the end of diplomacy

Despite the seriousness of the escalation, the termination of the memorandum of understanding does not necessarily mean the end of the diplomatic path between Washington and Tehran. History proves that temporary agreements often collapse before major settlements mature. However, returning to negotiations requires addressing previously postponed issues, foremost among them the status of the Strait of Hormuz and the limits of Iranian maritime influence. If the two parties succeed in separating the dispute over sovereignty from the need to ensure navigation security, the current crisis could turn into an opportunity to rebuild a more sustainable understanding.