Only days after the United States and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding, the agreement has entered its most critical phase. Military and political escalation has quickly replaced the initial atmosphere of de-escalation, raising concerns that the understanding, regarded as the first step towards containing the confrontation and reopening negotiations, may begin to unravel.
Although the memorandum, signed on 17 June, succeeded in ending direct hostilities and creating conditions for renewed talks, developments that followed exposed the fragility of the agreement. They also highlighted that several regional flashpoints, particularly the Strait of Hormuz and southern Lebanon, remain capable of derailing the understanding at any moment.
Political observers view the memorandum as a temporary framework to halt the conflict rather than a comprehensive agreement addressing the root causes of tensions between Washington and Tehran. It includes provisions for ending military operations, reopening the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping, establishing conditions for a 60 day negotiation period, and reducing regional escalation.
Mutual Accusations
The calm proved short lived.
The United States announced that the commercial vessel Keiko had come under a drone attack in the Strait of Hormuz, blaming Iran and describing the incident as the first clear breach of the memorandum. Tehran denied direct responsibility, maintaining that its actions in the strait fall within its management of maritime navigation under its interpretation of the agreement.
Early on Sunday, Washington responded with air strikes targeting ten Iranian military sites along the southern coast and around the Strait of Hormuz. The strikes hit radar installations, coastal surveillance facilities, and missile and drone storage sites. The United States Central Command stated that the operation was intended to protect freedom of navigation and respond to the attack on the commercial vessel.
Iran rejected the accusations, insisting that Washington was the first to violate the agreement. Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the US strikes demonstrated “the extent of the United States’ disregard for its obligations and commitments”, describing them as a clear violation of both the United Nations Charter and the memorandum signed by the two countries.
In response, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced that it had targeted what it described as eight major US military facilities, including Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait and the headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain. Analysts described the exchange as the most serious test the agreement has faced since it was signed.
The current situation reflects the agreement’s central dilemma. While both parties remain politically committed to the memorandum, each accuses the other of being the first to violate it.
Washington argues that Iran breached the agreement by targeting international shipping, while Tehran insists the US strikes came first and that its response was an exercise of its right to self defence.
Analysts say the absence of a clear mechanism to monitor compliance or adjudicate alleged violations has allowed every military incident to escalate into a political crisis, with each side adhering firmly to its own narrative.
Strait of Hormuz Remains the Most Dangerous Flashpoint
Since the memorandum was signed, the Strait of Hormuz has emerged as the most sensitive issue.
The agreement called for reopening the vital waterway to global trade and energy shipments after its closure during the conflict caused significant disruption to international oil and gas markets.
However, the strait quickly returned to the centre of the crisis as both sides exchanged accusations over attacks on commercial shipping, reviving concerns that it could once again be used as a political and military pressure point.
Experts argue that the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz extends beyond the volume of global oil exports passing through it. It also represents one of the most significant elements of deterrence between Iran and the United States. Any escalation in the area has an immediate impact on energy prices and financial markets, even if the waterway remains open.
Specialists also note that while major maritime chokepoints cannot realistically be closed indefinitely, they remain highly effective tools of geopolitical pressure, ensuring that the Strait of Hormuz remains central to any confrontation or understanding between Washington and Tehran.
Military and strategic analyst Colonel Nidal Abu Zaid said Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has begun to sense a gradual erosion of its leverage over the Strait of Hormuz, which has long provided Tehran with one of its strongest negotiating advantages. According to him, this explains Iran’s determination to maintain practical control over the waterway within its geographical sphere of influence.
In his latest remarks, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that the Strait of Hormuz is administered solely by Tehran and that no other authority is responsible for its management. He argued that any alternative arrangement would contradict the memorandum signed with Washington.
Lebanon Remains a Source of Uncertainty
Observers believe the Lebanese file is no less complex than the Strait of Hormuz.
They argue that the provisions relating to southern Lebanon were drafted in broad and ambiguous language, allowing conflicting interpretations.
While the agreement calls for reducing tensions across all fronts, Israel has continued carrying out air strikes in southern Lebanon and insists on maintaining a presence at several locations, claiming its deployment is necessary for security reasons.
Tehran, however, argues that continued Israeli military operations and the presence of Israeli forces inside Lebanese territory contradict the agreement and provide political justification for either responding directly or supporting its regional allies.
Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stressed that safeguarding Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is essential for the sustainability of any agreement aimed at ending the conflict.
Experts consider this ambiguity one of the memorandum’s greatest weaknesses, leaving one of the region’s most volatile fronts without a clearly defined framework.
At the same time, southern Lebanon is entering a new phase following the announcement that Lebanon and Israel have signed a framework agreement under US sponsorship.
Why Are Tensions Rising?
Analysts believe the current escalation does not necessarily indicate that either side seeks a return to full scale war. Instead, both are attempting to strengthen their negotiating position while advancing their own interpretation of the agreement.
Several major issues also remain unresolved, including the future of Iran’s nuclear programme, US sanctions, maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz, the scope of Iranian regional influence, and the future of Israel’s military presence in southern Lebanon.
Observers say these issues have been deferred to future rounds of negotiations, leaving the memorandum closer to a temporary truce than a lasting peace agreement.
Could the Agreement Collapse?
Neither Washington nor Tehran has announced its withdrawal from the memorandum. Both continue to express support for negotiations while simultaneously blaming each other for the latest escalation.
Nevertheless, current developments suggest the agreement has entered an increasingly fragile stage. Any new military strike, attack on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, or escalation along the Lebanese front could trigger a wider breakdown of the understanding.
US President Donald Trump said the United States may continue military operations against Iran if it continues violating the ceasefire, warning, “The enemy must understand that we will be forced to complete the mission we began successfully through military means. If that happens, Iran will cease to exist.”
Trump added that the United States “may reach a point where it can no longer be tolerant or reasonable,” repeating his warning that continued violations could lead Washington to expand its military campaign.
Meanwhile, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard said its response would become increasingly severe each time “the enemy” violated the ceasefire, adding, “The enemy is deceptive. We do not trust it, and it may take action at any stage, even while negotiations are ongoing.”
Mediators Step Up Diplomatic Efforts
At the same time, mediators are working to contain the escalation and preserve the negotiation process established by the memorandum, seeking to implement agreed measures that reduce tensions and pave the way towards broader regional stability.
Pakistani Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar and Bahraini Foreign Minister Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani discussed the latest regional developments following the agreement between the United States and Iran.
Dar reaffirmed that Pakistan would continue supporting dialogue and diplomacy to promote peace and stability both regionally and internationally.
Arab diplomatic contacts have also stressed the importance of implementing the Washington Tehran agreement and ensuring Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon.
Separate telephone discussions took place on Saturday evening between several Arab foreign ministers, including Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty, Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan, Lebanese Foreign Minister Youssef Raji, Bahraini Foreign Minister Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani, as well as discussions between the foreign ministers of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, according to official sources.
Analysts believe the future of the agreement will depend over the coming days and weeks on the ability of mediators to contain the escalation, establish clear mechanisms for interpreting disputed provisions, and prevent limited military exchanges from developing into a broader regional confrontation.
While diplomacy remains possible, events since the memorandum was signed demonstrate that the US Iran understanding has yet to move beyond the stage of a fragile truce. Its long term success will ultimately depend on whether both parties can manage their differences without reverting to military escalation that nearly derailed the agreement within days of its signing.
