Analysts say the renewed US‑Iran escalation centers on divergent readings of Article 5 of the memorandum of understanding. Article 5 requires Iran to "make arrangements... to ensure safe passage of commercial ships" and to work with Oman to "determine the Strait's future management," but does not clearly grant Iran exclusive jurisdiction. Iranian commentators say Tehran insists the Strait is open — not on US terms — and is returning the dispute to the memorandum's text to argue military force ca

Analysts say the renewed US‑Iran escalation centers on divergent readings of Article 5 of the memorandum of understanding. Article 5 requires Iran to "make arrangements... to ensure safe passage of commercial ships" and to work with Oman to "determine the Strait's future management," but does not clearly grant Iran exclusive jurisdiction. Iranian commentators say Tehran insists the Strait is open — not on US terms — and is returning the dispute to the memorandum's text to argue military force cannot rewrite negotiated outcomes. The International Crisis Group warns the memorandum's early ambiguity, once useful to stop fighting, has become a risk; it urges both sides to stop imposing competing interpretations — specifically that Iran cease firing on vessels and the US suspend promoting alternative shipping routes, at least temporarily. Mediators are pushing for talks; no deal yet, though hostilities have eased for now.