Washington: What was intended as a confidence-building measure to restore commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has instead emerged as one of the most contentious provisions of the Iran-US memorandum of understanding (MoU), exposing sharply different visions in Washington and Tehran over the future governance of one of the world's most strategic waterways.
According to Anadolu Agency, analysts say Article 5, which deals with freedom of navigation, demining, and maritime security, deliberately left key political questions unresolved to secure the broader agreement. Those ambiguities are now becoming one of the biggest obstacles to implementing the accord. Leonardo Jacopo Maria Mazzucco, a researcher focusing on Gulf security affairs, stated that Washington and Tehran attach very different meanings to Article 5. The provision calls for the safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, including a 60-day period during which Iran would not charge transit fees while maritime security measures, including demining, are undertaken.
Mazzucco explained that the clause reflects fundamentally different political objectives rather than a disagreement over shipping itself. For the US, the clause is seen as laying the groundwork for future negotiations between Iran and its Gulf Arab neighbors on a shared framework for managing maritime traffic through the strait. These negotiations should occur on the basis of sovereign equality among all littoral states. Iran, however, interprets the agreement as a semi-formal acknowledgment by the US of Tehran's primacy over the strait, believing it to be negotiating from a position of enhanced leverage.
The temporary suspension of transit charges for commercial shipping is another disputed element. Mazzucco highlighted that Tehran views this as recognition that there can be no return to the pre-conflict status quo, while Washington sees it as a temporary confidence-building measure designed to facilitate negotiations. The core disagreement is over the starting point from which negotiations should proceed.
Seyed Emamian, an assistant professor in public policy and governance at Tehran Polytechnic University, noted that the agreement does not oblige Iran to negotiate a permanent governance framework. Meanwhile, earlier proposals by US President Donald Trump to impose a 20% fee on shipping through the waterway were abandoned in favor of broader trade and investment agreements with Gulf states.
Article 5 requires Iran to remove technical and military obstacles and carry out demining operations within 30 days. However, there is no public evidence that such efforts have begun. Even if Iran fulfills its obligations, broader international involvement would be necessary to restore confidence among international shipping companies.
The agreement also assigns Oman a central diplomatic role, calling for Tehran to engage Muscat and other Gulf littoral states to discuss future administration and maritime services of the strait in accordance with international law. Mazzucco noted that Iran has sought to strengthen its negotiating position by maintaining pressure on commercial shipping while testing the resolve of the US and Gulf Arab states. Washington has focused on protecting freedom of navigation without outlining a broader vision for the strait's long-term governance.
Military pressure is unlikely to change the balance of power in the waterway, according to Emamian, who believes there is no military solution for diluting Iranian control over the strait.