The United States and Iran late Sunday pulled back from their escalating attacks over the Strait of Hormuz, a flare-up that had tested a fragile ceasefire and called into question both sides’ desire to avoid a full return to battle.
The tit-for-tat exchanges saw Iran target two commercial vessels passing through the strategic waterway, U.S. retaliatory strikes against Iranian coastal military targets, and then, in response, Iran’s launching of ballistic missiles and drones at Kuwait and Bahrain, which host U.S. forces.
Yet such surges of violence are expected, analysts say, as both sides seek to maximize leverage over key issues covered by a 14-point memorandum of understanding, agreed to on June 17, that sought to defuse the conflict. The memorandum, or MoU, requires a full opening of the strait for 60 days amid negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program – a core dispute between the two sides – and can be extended by mutual consent.
Why We Wrote This
If the core U.S.-Iran dispute has long been Tehran’s nuclear program, the tit-for-tat strikes in the Strait of Hormuz make clear that control of the waterway is of immediate concern to both. Neither wants a resumption of full-scale war, yet threats are flying.
Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz after Feb. 28, when the United States and Israel jointly launched surprise attacks against the Islamic Republic, caused a global surge in energy, food, and fertilizer prices. The risk of recession and the near-depletion of global oil reserves are believed to have convinced U.S. President Donald Trump to seek a ceasefire.
“I fully expect more ups and downs, and back and forth, for the duration of the 60, if not 90, if not 120 days,” says Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa Program at Chatham House, a London-based think tank.
“We all know that negotiating with the Iranians is not for the faint-hearted, and this is [a U.S.] administration that also doesn’t have patience for details, so it’s going to be very bumpy,” says Dr. Vakil.
“Peace between the wars”
The main issue at stake in this flare-up, she says, is the preservation of leverage.
“I don’t think the strait is going to fully reopen while negotiations continue to be fragile and unpredictable, because I don’t think Iran will surrender this leverage when all the other files remain up in the air,” she says.
“And, probably, in Tehran, they’re thinking that the moment they give up the Strait of Hormuz card, Trump will lose interest and it will be harder to close the deal,” says Dr. Vakil. The result is that “we should not assume that this [MoU] status quo is going to last forever. I think this is a pause; it’s the peace between the wars.”
Mr. Trump announced on social media on Monday that Iran had “requested” a meeting, and that technical teams from both sides would resume talks in Qatar Tuesday. Iran said midday Monday that those talks had yet to be confirmed.
Earlier, as fighting escalated over the weekend, Mr. Trump posted that the U.S. struck Iran for “violating” the terms of the MoU “again.”
Late Saturday, Mr. Trump wrote, “It is very possible that they will never learn!” and issued a blunt threat, saying the U.S. could “be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started. If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist!”
Who controls the strait
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Sunday that shipping through the strait would return to prewar capacity within 30 days, under Iranian management and the terms of the MoU.
“Any intervention or attempt to create arrangements contrary to the existing understandings will only complicate the situation, delay the return of normalcy to the Strait of Hormuz, and increase tension,” Mr. Araghchi said during a visit to Baghdad.
The text of the MoU requires Iran to apply its “best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge, for 60 days only.” In a nod to Tehran’s demand to charge future fees to vessels for passage through the strait, the MoU also states that Iran “will conduct dialog with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz.”
The Iranian drone strike against a container ship on Thursday – which triggered the latest U.S.-Iran escalation – came just hours after Oman, without apparently consulting Iran, struck a deal with the U.N. International Maritime Organization for a route that only passed through Omani waters.
Institute for the Study of War and AEI’s Critical Threats Project, Liveuamap
|
Jacob Turcotte/Staff
The MoU also requires a ceasefire “on all fronts, including in Lebanon,” and is meant to ensure the territorial integrity of Lebanon – a reference to Israeli forces now occupying a strip of southern Lebanon in their active offensive against Iran-backed Hezbollah.
A secret annex to a deal signed between Lebanon and Israel in Washington Friday – which Lebanon demanded be kept secret, according to the text, but was leaked to Israeli media – reportedly indicates that Israel has no plans or obligation to withdraw from Lebanon in the near future.
Kevin Wolf/AP
Lebanon, the tit-for-tat strikes, and other obstacles to the MoU aside, thornier issues such as Iran’s nuclear program are still to be negotiated.
“Iranians will not concede”
“The Iranians emerged from this campaign with the upper hand, at least in their perception, so they will require every tanker passing through the strait to go through the routes they have designated,” writes Danny Citrinowicz of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, Israel, on social media.
“They see sovereignty in the Strait of Hormuz as a very significant event, as important as missile production and maintaining [uranium] enrichment in Iran. Therefore, this is not an event that is going to end,” writes Mr. Citrinowicz, who previously served as the head of the Iran branch of Israel Defense Intelligence.
“The Iranians will not concede, and they are not at all impressed by Trump’s threats,” he writes. “The American deterrence, and perhaps also the Israeli one in this context, has been significantly damaged as a result of the war.”
Despite the Iranian and U.S. strikes, some 48 vessels passed through the Strait of Hormuz between June 26 and June 28, according to an analysis by Al Jazeera’s Open Source Unit. The average daily number of vessels transiting the strait prior to the war was 130 or more. Some 78 transited last Wednesday, the day before the tit-for-tat exchanges began, the Associated Press reported.
Yet another point of contention: Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Monday he expected the release of $6 billion worth of the $12 billion in Iran’s frozen assets held in the Qatar Central Bank, for use as Iran determines. U.S. officials, by contrast, say any release of such funds will be spent exclusively on American goods, and for humanitarian purposes.
“I just don’t know if [Iran] will be able to translate what they have in their hands now into an agreement, says Dr. Vakil of Chatham House.
“It’s going to be very choppy waters from here on out,” she adds, “unless this technical track moves forward at a faster speed” to swiftly address details of outstanding issues.
“There are so many vested interests in these negotiations, and that’s positive. But at the same time, it has the potential to slow down the process, because everyone wants to weigh in, and … that’s how I see the instability perpetuating.”