On Tuesday, Iran attacked a new southern route that the United States attempted to create through the Strait of Hormuz, arguing that the move was an attempt to undermine the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the two nations. The attack involved an exchange of fire, marking the latest military flare-up in the region.
Iran's Perspective: A Turning Point in Shia Islam
At a foreign ministry press briefing in Tehran, spokesperson Esmail Baghaei claimed the world was witnessing a turning point in the history of Shia Islam. He asserted that the assassinated Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would be revered as a second Imam Hussain, the martyred grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, while Donald Trump would be seen as a latter-day Yazid, the tyrannical 7th-century caliph. Normally a level-headed diplomat, Baghaei portrayed Iran as the victim of an epochal struggle to protect its independence.
The deep wave of religiosity and patriotism unleashed by Khamenei's funeral procession had not abated, moving on to Najaf in Iraq, where the supreme leader's coffin was taken to the shrine of Imam Ali. The atmosphere in Iran remains highly charged.
Trump's Remarks and Nato Summit Context
At the Nato summit in Turkey, Donald Trump described Iranians as “garbage”, “cancer”, “devils” and “scum”, declaring further talks with Iran a waste of time. This came at a particularly sensitive moment, with Iran gripped by grief and religious fervour. Some analysts see the military flare-up as a product of an unfortunate juxtaposition, with Trump lashing out at Europe's supposed free-riding at Nato, and Iran asserting itself as a brave and resilient nation.
However, optimists who hope the current mood may dissipate like a passing cloud may be misplaced. It seems likely that Iran's military, not its diplomats, are now making decisions, as confidence-building measures have fallen flat.
Escalation Cycle and Expert Analysis
There may be no circuit breaker to end the cycle of Iranian attacks on shipping, US strikes on the southern Iranian coastline, and Iranian counter-attacks on US military bases in Bahrain and Kuwait. Eric Brewer, a former US national security adviser, said Trump may be reaping the consequences of what he sowed: “He accepted a vague agreement that postponed many issues to the future because he was concerned about the economic consequences of continuing the war and doubted further bombing would bring much success.”
Vali Nasr, author of Iran’s Grand Strategy, warned that the current escalation could easily lead to an end of the MOU, which was designed to lead to substantial peace talks. “Iran believes the US wants to use it to gain control of the strait from Tehran – and if that is the case, Iran must be prepared to go to war over this issue,” Nasr said.
Ellie Geranmayeh, Middle East analyst at the European Council on Foreign Relations, noted a problem of sequencing: “Iran does not want to cede its leverage over the strait before a broader deal is reached on US economic relief. But for Trump, the reopening of the strait is the heart of the MOU and without it he will be under immense pressure from Republican hawks to resume war with Iran.”
Dispute Over the Southern Route and MOU Terms
Baghaei insisted that the MOU clearly referred to continued Iranian control of the strait for at least 60 days, and argued that the recent US-Omani attempt to create a new southern route – the shipping lane that Iran attacked three times on Tuesday – is incompatible with the agreement. “The problem here is that the US is interfering in Iran’s business,” he said.
Iranian diplomats know the articles of the MOU by heart, as the agreement was designed by Iran to defer discussion of the nuclear issue until Iran has first received tangible gains, such as sanctions relief. For them, any attempt to reopen the strait through demining and permissions would be seen as the decommissioning of its chief weapon. The recent surge of ships through the southern route and the accompanying fall in oil prices was alarming and premature, prompting Iran to take back control to avoid losing leverage for sanctions relief and a ceasefire in Lebanon.
By contrast, the US says the main objective settled in the MOU was the reopening of the strait, and that an Iranian veto of the route was never part of the deal.
Sanctions Waiver Revoked and Security Fee Proposal
To compound the crisis, the US on Tuesday revoked its sanctions waiver on Iran’s oil exports only 17 days after its introduction. The waiver had been the one tangible benefit Iran had received from the deal.
Those close to the crisis are aiming to create a joint system of notification for ships passing through the strait, in which both Iran and members of the Gulf Co-operation Council would have a say. Such a move would be a loosening of Iranian sovereignty, but not an abandonment. However, behind that piece of diplomacy is a bigger problem: Iranian diplomats insist that in future all ships transiting the strait will have to pay a security fee – a proposal that is universally rejected, but that Iran still seems unwilling to give up.
For the moment, the only constraint on a return to all-out war is that it has been tried, and failed.
