The interim ceasefire agreement established in June between the United States and Iran to halt direct hostilities is rapidly deteriorating, with accusations of breaches from both parties and renewed confrontations in critical areas.
The 14-point Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding aimed to end the conflict triggered by US-Israeli strikes on Iran on 28 February and to reopen the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, a key route for global energy shipments. However, the agreement’s ambiguous wording on fundamental issues has led to divergent interpretations, sparking fresh violence and diplomatic tensions.
Experts had cautioned that the MoU’s broad and unclear terms would likely cause difficulties. Thomas Juneau, associate fellow at the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House, explained that the pact’s immediate objectives were to stop fighting and resume traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. It also set the stage for future negotiations on more complex disputes but postponed resolving deep-rooted disagreements.
“The vagueness of the MoU’s terms made it almost inevitable that the two sides would disagree on their interpretation, meaning the ceasefire would not fully halt violence,” Juneau noted.
Recent evidence underscores this reality. Footage from Musandam, Oman, showed vessels navigating the Strait of Hormuz on 12 July. The US Central Command released nighttime images depicting jets taking off, projectiles being launched, and targets struck. Iranian sources displayed missile launches by Revolutionary Guard forces. Explosions and smoke were reported near Bandar Abbas in Hormozgan Province on 8 July, with satellite data confirming heat signatures close to Haqani port.
Tensions escalated further following an incident involving a tanker. Audio recordings from the LNG vessel Al Rekayyat, struck on its port side, captured crew members reporting smoke, engine room damage, and calls for help near Limah, Oman. The UK Maritime Trade Operations reported a tanker hit by an unidentified projectile, resulting in a fire.
Central to the breakdown is the dispute over control and access to the Strait of Hormuz. After hostilities began, Iran effectively closed the waterway, through which about 20% of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas transit. Article 5 of the MoU mandated the immediate resumption of commercial vessel traffic, with Iran pledging to ensure safe passage without fees for 60 days.
Tehran interprets this clause as confirming its authority over the entire strait. Conversely, the United States and Gulf nations reject this view, insisting the agreement requires Iran to permit free navigation without coercive restrictions. The US has emphasized that the strait must remain free of tolls.
In practice, Iran has fired on vessels it deemed to be on unauthorized routes and has declared the strait closed again. The US Navy’s Joint Maritime Information Center countered by stating that a southern route remains open and has been expanded to allow two-way traffic. MarineTraffic data from 12 to 13 July illustrated changes in vessel movements consistent with these claims.
Juneau highlighted the core disagreement: “Iran sees the framework as allowing it significant control over shipping in the strait, while the US interprets it as requiring Iran to guarantee freedom of navigation.”
Other provisions of the MoU are also under strain. Article 10 obligated Washington to issue waivers for Iranian crude oil, petroleum products, and related services such as banking, insurance, and transport—offering crucial economic relief amid sanctions. However, on 7 July, the US revoked a key license, citing Iran’s actions in the strait as “wholly unacceptable.” Iran condemned this move as a violation of the agreement.
Article 11 concerned frozen assets, including $6 billion held in Qatari accounts. Qatar confirmed on 30 June that the funds had not been released. US Vice President JD Vance stated that the US and Qatar would oversee the spending, suggesting it be used for American agricultural goods. Iran’s ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Ali Bahreini, insisted that Tehran alone should decide how the funds are used.
Complications have deepened due to developments in Lebanon, where Iran-backed Hezbollah’s actions have drawn Israel into the conflict. Iranian officials, including parliament speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, cited ongoing Israeli operations there as breaches of the MoU, which called for a ceasefire in Lebanon.
US President Donald Trump has expressed frustration, stating bluntly during a press conference in Ankara with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, “To me, I think it’s over. I don’t want to deal with them anymore. They’re scum… And if they had a nuclear weapon, they’d use it. As far as I’m concerned, it’s over.” Nevertheless, Juneau noted that Trump’s rhetoric often leaves room for flexibility, pointing to signs of willingness for indirect negotiations.
On the Iranian side, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei declared on 13 July that the US had “mutilated” various parts of the memorandum and that Iran would only fulfill its obligations if the other side adhered to its commitments. Qalibaf posted on social media, “The era of one-sided deals is OVER. We told you: keep your word or pay the price.” Juneau observed that despite aggressive language, neither side has fully abandoned the ceasefire framework, with Iran signaling a reluctance to completely end the ceasefire or cease indirect talks.
The MoU established a 60-day period, extendable by mutual consent, to negotiate a final agreement addressing Iran’s nuclear program, missile and drone capabilities, support for regional groups, and broader security arrangements. However, no new talks have been scheduled amid the escalating tensions.
Juneau emphasized that the core issues extend beyond the MoU’s vagueness, rooted in profound disagreements over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, regional security, missile and drone programs, and support for militant groups. These contentious topics were deferred by the June framework, making future flare-ups likely. He warned that any temporary reduction in violence would probably be short-lived without addressing these fundamental disputes.
The ongoing situation has significant implications for global energy markets, maritime safety, and Middle East stability. Pakistan, which facilitated the original agreement, has urged all parties to honor their commitments. An analyst from the Carnegie Middle East Center noted that the MoU now requires a supplementary agreement to provide a solid basis for de-escalation.
