A 14-point memorandum of understanding signed by the United States and Iran in June, intended to de-escalate tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, has become a focal point of disagreement due to its ambiguous wording, leading to contradictory interpretations by both nations.
The core of the dispute lies in a clause within the fifth paragraph of the agreement, which states: "Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only."
American officials interpret this to mean the Strait of Hormuz should be fully open for all commercial traffic without impediment. However, Iran views the memorandum as a basis for asserting control over navigation routes, proposing that trade pass along a corridor near its coast, which it intends to charge fees for.
Crucially, the memorandum does not contain an explicit guarantee of safe passage for all vessels through any portion of the strait. At Iran's insistence, the document acknowledges Iran's influence in the waterway and defers the issue of transit fees to future discussions.
This ambiguity has led to confusion, exemplified by President Trump's recent, quickly retracted, proposal to charge fees for security in the Strait, a concept he has raised multiple times despite conflicting statements from his aides advocating for a toll-free waterway.
Former officials and analysts note that such interpretive discrepancies are common when contractual language lacks precision. Michael Ratney, a retired diplomat and former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, commented to The New York Times that it is unsurprising Iran interprets the clause as granting it a continuing role in managing passage through Hormuz, given the vagueness of the negotiated text.
