Fragile Truce Between US and Iran Falters
The delicate "no war, no peace" status that has existed since the US and Iran signed a tentative agreement last month now appears to be deteriorating toward renewed conflict.
This intermittent truce could potentially be revived through the efforts of increasingly frustrated Arab and Pakistani mediators, as well as both parties’ preference to avoid a prolonged, full-scale war.
However, the most significant point of contention remains the status of the strategic Strait of Hormuz. Iran continues to assert that its control over this vital maritime corridor is an absolute red line that cannot be compromised by military, economic, or diplomatic pressure.
"We told you: keep your word or pay the price," Iran's lead negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf recently stated on social media, referencing the agreement.
Importance of the Strait of Hormuz in the Iran Conflict
Tehran has found support for its position within the ambiguous language of the memorandum of understanding, drafted hastily in June. From the outset, both sides have interpreted the agreement differently.
Iran interprets point five of the 14-point plan as granting it authority over the management of this critical maritime corridor. Point five states: "The Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels."
Conversely, the US interprets this clause as requiring Tehran to ensure the free flow of global oil and gas supplies, as well as other essential commodities, including fertilizer ingredients.
"You can drive a truck through those clauses," an Arab oil executive working in the region commented.
While the new leadership in Tehran, which emerged after weeks of intense conflict and waves of US-Israeli assassinations, appears united on their broad strategic vision for this phase of the Islamic Republic, there are growing signs of internal divisions regarding the way forward.
"Some want to cash in on battlefield gains through diplomacy and some believe the ceasefire came too soon before Iran had inflicted enough pain on the US," said Robert Malley of the International Crisis Group, who was part of the US delegation negotiating the 2015 nuclear deal that President Donald Trump withdrew from during his first term.
Recent Iranian Attacks and IRGC’s Role
Recent Iranian attacks on three vessels, including a Qatari-flagged liquefied natural gas tanker navigating a shipping corridor near Oman's southern coastline, were described by a diplomatic source in the region as the actions of a "rogue unit" within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
Within a system where the IRGC now holds dominant influence, Iran’s non-negotiable stance is that vessels must adhere to its designated routes.
Amid this escalation, Iran’s parliament quietly introduced a new bill titled the Strategic Action for the Security and Sustainable Progress of the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf.
This development was announced on X by Ebrahim Azizi, head of the assembly’s national security commission, who previously stated in April that controlling the waterway was Iran’s "inalienable right." When asked when Iran would relinquish control, Azizi responded succinctly: "never." He described the strait as an "asset to face the enemy."
Iran’s deep mistrust of US commitments, fueled by recurring outbreaks of conflict or threats during negotiations, has solidified its resolve.
Control over the strait is viewed not only as a bargaining chip but also as a source of leverage, deterrence, and an economic lifeline should sanctions remain in place and Iranian assets worldwide stay frozen.
Regional Tensions and Diplomatic Challenges
Tehran’s determination to alter the regional status quo is generating friction with neighboring countries, including Qatar, a key mediator in the crisis, and Oman, a longstanding ally that has played a discreet role behind the scenes for decades.
Countries such as the United Arab Emirates have explicitly rejected Iran’s plans to assert control, including proposals to impose "service fees," deeming such actions unacceptable and setting a dangerous precedent.
An informed source revealed that Oman objected to Iran’s inclusion in the agreement’s contested fifth point, which states that Iran "will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services."
Muscat now finds itself caught between Washington’s expectations and Tehran’s desire to preserve its reputation as the region’s discreet diplomatic intermediary.
"Oman has been very patient with the Iranians trying to keep good neighbourly relations," Omani analyst Professor Abdullah Baabood told the BBC's Newshour programme. "This particular episode has driven Oman to take quite a substantial stand...but we want this conflict to be resolved through dialogue."
Potential for Compromise
Some observers still perceive a limited possibility for compromise.
Former senior British diplomat Simon Gass, who participated in the 2015 nuclear deal negotiations, suggested a possible middle ground.
"I don't think there are any great solutions out there but the sweet spot could be in some sort of arrangement in which no tolls were charged for ships passing through the strait but there could be some sort of shipping fees which allow Iran to show it retains its authority," Gass said.
Mutual Miscalculations and Economic Pressures
Beyond the dispute over the strait, both sides fundamentally misjudge their adversary. Each believes it has emerged from the conflict stronger and expects the other to capitulate first due to internal weaknesses.
Iran is noted for its capacity "to absorb pain." It briefly exploited a window during the deal when sanctions on oil exports were temporarily lifted, but recent visits to Iran reveal a worsening economic and financial crisis. Inflation has soared to approximately 80 percent, and millions of jobs have been lost due to the conflict and one of the longest internet blackouts in history.
Additionally, Iran has endured two wars within a year and severe anti-government protests that were violently suppressed, resulting in thousands of deaths.
President Trump faces his own political and economic pressures that may yet prompt a return to negotiations, albeit sporadically.
The crisis over control of this key corridor, a consequence of the war, has overshadowed discussions on the core issue: the future of Iran’s nuclear program. The memorandum’s 60-day window for intensive negotiations, which was never realistic, further complicates progress.
"I give the truce a fair chance of recovering in some form because neither side can completely get its way as they will find out soon enough," Malley said. "But given dysfunctionalities on both sides, I wouldn't entirely wager on it."
