|
War On Iran: Both Sides Declare Their MoU To Be Ineffective
The last three days have led to another escalation in the Strait of Hormuz.
At the beginning of the week more tankers took the southern route along the Omani coast instead of the northern route on which Iran, following the Memorandum of Understanding, insists. The Omani route is under observation and protection by U.S. military assets.
Iran is not the only one which interprets clause 5 of the MoU – “the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements …” – to give it exclusive rights to regulate the traffic in the Strait.
Gérard Araud @GerardAraud – 19:59 UTC · Jul 7, 2026
At the first reading by any diplomat, the MoU was obviously giving Iran a free hand in the strait of Hormuz. …
On Tuesday Iran fired drones against some five cargo ships which took the U.S. protected Omani route. Other ships on the same route immediately started to divert. Some returned to their anchoring positions while other proceed along the northern route.
Late Tuesday the U.S. canceled its regulation which had lifted U.S. sanctions against the sale of Iranian oil. The lifting of sanctions had been one of the MoU provisions.
On Wednesday morning a large U.S. attack was launched against targets along the Iranian coast. Some 60 of the targets were random civilian fishing vessels which the U.S. claimed to be IRGC speed boats.
Iran announced ‘consequences’ and stated that the U.S. was (again) in breach of the MoU provisions:
The [foreign] ministry said the strikes constituted “a flagrant violation” of the first clause of the Pakistan-brokered MoU, which requires the cessation of military operations.
It said that the attacks, coupled with the US Treasury Department’s decision the previous night to revoke Iran’s oil sales authorization, were in violation of arrangements concerning the Strait of Hormuz, adding that the continuation of Israeli military aggression and terrorist acts against Lebanon, had rendered “important and fundamental parts” of the agreement ineffective.
“The responsibility for the dangerous consequences of this escalation rests with the treaty-breaking US regime,” the statement said.
Iran warned its neighboring Gulf states of providing bases for U.S. aggression:
The Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters has declared that the origin of any support provided to the “aggressor US military” in attacks against Iran’s sovereignty and territory would be regarded as a legitimate target for the Iranian Armed Forces.
Iran responded to the U.S. attack by launching missiles and drones against U.S. military positions in Kuwait and Bahrain. It also downed an expensive U.S. MQ-9 ‘Reaper’ drone.
Trump declared the ceasefire to be over:
Asked whether the ceasefire and memorandum of understanding with Iran is now over after the latest attacks, Trump said it was.
“It’s a very interesting question to me. I think it’s over. I don’t want to deal with them anymore,” Trump said.
“They’re scum. You know what scum is? They’re scum. They’re sick people. They’re led by people, and they’re vicious, violent people.”
He added: “And if they had a nuclear weapon, they’d use it. As far as I’m concerned, it’s over.”
Oil prices have risen 6% and are now likely to increase further.
Should the oil prices continue to increase it is likely that Trump, who spoke of “the Islamic Republic of Japan”, will again change his mind.
I will try to describe in the simplest if terms the status of the conflict, as per custom, treaties, and international law:
When a country attacks or invades another it is known as an International Armed Conflict ot IAC, in traditional terms War.
The US initiated a war with Iran.
A war does not end until a peace treaty is signed.
A ceasefire is a pause in hostilities, an armastice is a fuller standown of forces prior to peace treaty.
During a war, the customary rule of law ‘does not exist’. To rewrite or re-affirm the pre-existing rules into a new or agreed format, is by peace treaty, with full adoption only existing after international recognition.
The MoU is/was a ceasefire. The US remained at war with Iran.
During a ceasefire, the rules of engagement are improvised. One country might still occupy parts of another country, for example.
The strait of Hormuz is not an international waterway per existing law. It is the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. International law (say via UN) cannot change this or impose another reality, except with the consent of Iran and Oman.
The US tries to impose Hormuz as an international waterway, this is a unilateral action.
During war, Iran as defender has an ‘understandable right’ to attempt to impede the abilities of an aggressor, that provides it with reason for closing Hormuz. Closing Hormuz denied transit of naval assets to the Persian/Arabian gulf , it denied re-supply of hostile nations in the gulf.
As this encroached on Omani waters. During open conflict, and under ceasefire conditions, Oman had various options. To declare neutrality, to back Iran, or to back Gulf States and US.
It has chosen neutrality, i.e. as if the transit of ships was allowed as far as it was concerned, that Iranian actions in its waters were part of a spill over from a neighbouring conflict.
That the ceasefire agreement (and presumably hidden annexes) allowed control of Hormuz by Iran during its period, is hardly contested. The flow of traffic however was to be by all routes initially, including of US naval assets.
This was a concession to Iran, likely based as a reassurance regarding other facets of the ceasefire. The failure of “Israel” to vacate Lebanon (amongst other) is seen by Iran as breach of ceasefire, and so it began restricting Hormuz as proportional retaliation.
Oman, by allowing US naval assets to use its waters, which is not due by a state, might also be seen to take sides. However it must be remembered that technicaly the US and Iran are still at war, and so all territorial rules in the conflict zone are open to interpretation (or even simply don’t exist) during the period, even if transgressions or sympathies might be noted.
Oman does have the right to vocally oppose use of its waters by both US and Iran if it so chooses. The US will use coercive pressure to silence that position, and Iran would likely ignore Omani petition due to necessity of defensive measures.
So the US is making Oman look weak, or cumplicit by defending use of Omani waters.
Ultimately, a ceasefire only exists as long as both parties respect its meaning and intent, and this appears to no longer be the case.
The highly manipulative US move of obtaining Lebanese govt. approval for continued “Israeli” presence in Lebanon, of presenting (and enacting) that as validating the ceasefire, without Lebanese parliamentary approval even, is one very obvious breach of the ceasefire that Iran was bound to refuse.
Continued attacks in Gaza, Lebanon and on Iranian territory have further invalidated the ceasefire.
The US was not willing to allow Iranian control of the strait, or otherwise decided to use Iranian taking active control as pretext for escalation and renewed conflict, that after US failed to properly honour its own apparent obligations.
The result may be an expanded war that destroys much of the region, that inflicts hundreds of thousands of casualties, as well as many more indirectly.
@81 Verdant
“I’m just so fed up and right now not in a mood to give more rational thoughts.”
Posted by: Ornot | Jul 8 2026 20:15 utc | 100
|
