strikeJul 16, 2026

‘Safe passage’: The fatal ambiguity at the heart of the Hormuz MoU

Summary

‘Safe passage’: The fatal ambiguity at the heart of the Hormuz MoU Its promise of safe passage settled neither who governs the strait nor on what terms, making renewed escalation the memorandum’s logical outcome. Barely three weeks into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) meant to end a war, the United States is once again blockading Iranian ports, the two states are trading strikes on bases and military assets across the Gulf, and Mr Trump has floated the idea of charging shipping a 20 percent levy, or “protection money” in less polite language, for the security of the Strait of Hormuz. I would argue, however, that this is not so much the collapse of the June deal, as many are saying, as its logical conclusion. The clause on which global oil traffic depends was written to be signed, not to be operated, and the water is now exposing the difference. Article 5 of the MoU promises “safe passage of commercial vessels” through the strait. It is an elegant phrase. It is also, as a matter of maritime law, almost empty, and that emptiness is less an accident of drafting than the price of agreement. Iran and Washington could sign because the words commit each side to very little and permit each to believe very different things. That is precisely why the arrangement is unravelling faster than even the pessimists expected. Consider what “safe passage” leaves unanswered. It does not say who administers it. Article 5 tasks Iran with making “arrangements using its best efforts”, then sends Tehran off to hold a “dialogue” with Oman and “discussions” with the other Gulf states to define “the future administration and maritime services” of the strait. The US, the world’s pre-eminent naval power and the historical guarantor of navigational freedom, is not a party to those talks. Nor is the arrangement conditioned on the parties reaching any agreement. Iran is therefore free to argue that, once it has talked, it may unilaterally announce a new regime: Prior notification, designated Iranian corridors and charges dressed up as fees for “security, safety and environmental services”. Reports since the signing put the revenue Tehran imagines at tens of billions of dollars a year. An arrangement meant to reopen the strait has instead handed one coastal state a colourable claim to metre it. The legal problem beneath the drafting is older than the MoU. The Strait of Hormuz is an international strait, and under the transit-passage regime, codified in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea – and, in the prevailing view, reflecting customary law binding on all states – ships and aircraft of every nation enjoy continuous and expeditious passage that the bordering states may not suspend, even for security reasons. Iran, which never ratified the convention, insists that the applicable regime is instead the narrower “innocent passage” regime and that, as a persistent objector, it is not bound by the broader rule. On that reading, it may bar overflight, force submarines to surface and channel traffic as it likes. The MoU does not resolve this decades-old dispute. It gestures at “applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states”. It is thus no more than a formula that each capital reads as vindication of its own position. Constructive ambiguity has become an agreement to keep disagreeing about the one point on which everything depends. Even Iran’s narrower theory does not get it where it wants to go. Charges for mere passage are prohibited, whether the regime is one of transit or innocent passage. A coastal state may charge only for specific services actually rendered to a particular vessel, such as pilotage or towage. This is the rule that runs from the International Law Commission’s 1956 work through the 1958 Territorial Sea Convention, which Iran signed, to the modern convention. Ships have never needed special services to cross Hormuz’s wide, deep channel. Rebranding a toll as a “maritime-services fee” cannot change its legal character. Nor is the strait Iran’s to administer alone. Its southern side lies in Omani waters, and Oman is fully bound to permit transit passage there. Indeed, in the last few days, Oman has asserted in no uncertain terms that it is abiding by international law. Any Iranian interference on that side would be a plain breach of Oman’s sovereignty. Moreover, no two states, or even all the littoral states together, can bargain away the passage rights of third states that never consented, a principle as old as the law of treaties itself. The MoU cannot lawfully deliver what its most expansive readers hope it will deliver. What the US may lawfully do in response is correspondingly constrained. Freedom of navigation permits warships to transit and to protect commercial shipping. The MoU cannot be used to license the reciprocal temptation now voiced in Washington: A proposed 20 percent US “toll” to recoup the cost of keeping the strait open. This is where the legal fragility meets the military reality, and explains why the framework was doomed to strain. Safe passage as a legal concept presupposes a baseline of order. There should be an accepted authority, agreed rules of the road and a shared expectation that ships will not be shot at. The strait today offers none of that. Within the very 60-day “no charge” window the MoU created, Iranian forces struck vessels, including one in Omani waters; US Central Command answered with strikes on dozens of coastal radar, missile and fast-boat targets; Iran declared that it alone manages the strait and briefly proclaimed it closed; and both sides traded blows around Gulf bases. A deterrence contest is now the true governing regime of Hormuz, and deterrence is the opposite of law. It substitutes credible threat for settled rule and treats every transit as a test of resolve rather than an exercise of legal right. No two-word phrase can carry that political burden. The MoU was made to stop a war, but now the ceasefire clause is being asked to serve as a permanent constitution for one of the world’s most important chokepoints. It is being asked to allocate power, price access and determine rights of use. Its provisions are being imposed on third parties that never signed the MoU. It cannot, should not and must not. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

Actors involved

USIranUN

Sources

Jason ChuahBy Jason Chuah
‘Safe passage’: The fatal ambiguity at the heart of the Hormuz MoU Its promise of safe passage settled neither who governs the strait nor on what terms, making renewed escalation the memorandum’s logical outcome. Barely three weeks into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) meant t…

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

Jul 23, 2026strikeUnverifiedUSIranProxy

UK ‘ready to defend itself’ after Iranian threat over US bases

○ 1 source

The government has said the UK is “ready to defend itself” after Iran’s military warned that any bases being used by the US were “legitimate targets”. The UK has allowed the US to launch “defensive” operations from British bases hosting American planes since the start of its war on Iran but has refused to help in offensive operations.

That policy has not been altered by the new prime minister, Andy Burnham, who was notified last week that a decision had been made to extend the agreement with the US. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said on Thursday that “any base used for aggression against Iranian territory constitutes a legitimate target for our forces”.

In a statement published on the IRGC-linked Tasnim news agency, the group said American bombing missions had been launched from RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire two days earlier. The statement came after the US carried out a 12th consecutive night of strikes against targets in Iran.

The Ministry of Defence has not commented on whether Fairford was used by the US for operations against Iran this week. The IRGC also accused the “British monarchy regime” of causing being the “primary cause of hardships in our region with a black record of partitioning Islamic nations, widespread massacres, imposing despotic regimes, and organising the occupation of Palestine”.

It warned the government “not to weigh down its record any further”. A spokesperson for the British government said: “Our armed forces are ready to keep the United Kingdom safe from any kind of attacks, whether it’s on our soil or from abroad. The UK stands ready 24/7 to defend itself.

“This includes through operating a layered approach to air and missile defence, provided by Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force assets equipped with a range of advanced capabilities, working closely with our Nato allies. “We are committed to defending our people, our interests and our allies, acting in accordance with international law and not getting drawn into the wider conflict.

” On 1 March a drone struck the RAF base at Akrotiri in Cyprus, hitting a hangar, and prompting a partial evacuation of the facility. On 19 March, Iran fired two ballistic missiles at the UK’s Diego Garcia base in the Chagos Islands. One reportedly failed mid-flight, while the other was shot down by a US airship.

Iran has launched strikes against countries in the Gulf that house US military bases, including Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, killing American service personnel in some of the attacks. Donald Trump said Iran would “pay a big price” for killing US troops.

On Thursday afternoon, the US president said he was considering ordering a “massive attack” on Iran. “I am close to making a decision,” he told Axios. “We’re all set for it.” He said he believed Iran’s leaders “want to negotiate”, but aren’t yet ready to make a deal.

In another sign of the conflict potentially escalating, Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels said they attacked two Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea on Thursday, as oil topped $100 a barrel.

Hayden Vernon

Jul 23, 2026strikeUnverifiedUSIranProxyRussia

Oil Prices Soar as US-Iran Conflict Expands to Red Sea

○ 1 source

September WTI crude oil (CLU26) on Thursday closed up +5.36 (+6.17%), and September RBOB gasoline (RBU26) closed up +0.0793 (+2.44%). WTI crude oil prices (CLU26) rallied more than +6% on Thursday after the Iran-backed Houthis launched a missile and drone attack on two Saudi Arabian oil tankers in the Red Sea, expanding the oil disruptions beyond the Strait of Hormuz and threatening oil shipments in the Red Sea.

Sep Brent crude oil prices (CBU26) on Thursday rallied above $100 per barrel for the first time since May. President Trump said in an interview with Axios on Thursday that he is considering a “massive attack” that would be “bigger than ever before” and is “close to making a decision on it.

”Don’t Miss a Day: From crude oil to coffee, sign up free for Barchart’s best-in-class commodity analysis. The Houthis have vowed to blockade shipping linked to Saudi Arabia and warned shipowners against calling at the nation's ports. The move threatens Saudi oil exports from Yanbu, a Red Sea hub that the Saudi's are using to ship crude since the war brought shipping through the Strait of Hormuz to a near halt.

Meanwhile, the US and Iran exchanged attacks for the 12th straight day, and the US maintained its blockade of Iranian oil shipments in the Persian Gulf. Global crude oil supplies are tightening due to reduced flows through the Strait of Hormuz. The International Maritime Organization warned last Wednesday that it is too dangerous to cross the Strait of Hormuz at the moment, and visible transit through the strait has fallen sharply as Iran continues targeting tankers attempting to transit it.

Crude prices also have support as Ukraine intensifies drone attacks on Russian oil infrastructure. Russian crude production fell to 8.928 million bpd in June, the lowest in 2.5 years, according to monthly OPEC data. According to EA Analytics, Russian crude-processing rates will average 3.

51 million bpd in July, the lowest in 24 years, amid damage to Russian energy infrastructure caused by drone and missile attacks from Ukraine. According to Bloomberg, Ukrainian forces have attacked Russian fuel-producing facilities more than 50 times this year, hitting at least 24 of Russia’s 34 largest refineries.

As of the end of June, around 90% of Russian regions have imposed some form of fuel rationing or reported supply issues, as refining capacity has plunged following damage to facilities. The strikes have deepened a nationwide gasoline shortage, with several major refineries shut down and the government banning almost all gasoline, jet fuel and diesel exports.

Russia is the world’s number two diesel exporter, after the US, according to Vortexa. Stronger Russian crude exports are also adding to global oil supplies, which is bearish for prices. Data compiled by Bloomberg show the four-week average of Russian crude exports rose to 4.

13 million bpd through June 28, the highest since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Russia may be boosting its crude exports as the country’s refining capacity has plunged due to damage at its refining facilities from Ukraine drone and missile attacks.

The outlook for higher US crude output is negative for oil prices. The Department of Energy (DOE) on July 7 raised its US 2026 crude production estimate to 13.78 million bpd from a June estimate of 13.72 million bpd. As a bearish factor for crude, OPEC delegates said on May 14 that the cartel aims to continue a series of oil quota increases over the next few months, completing the return of halted oil production by the end of September.

The group already formally agreed to restore about two-thirds of the 1.65 million bpd supply cutback it made back in 2023 and said it plans to raise output targets further and to revive the final portion in three more monthly stages. On July 5, OPEC+ said it will boost its crude output by 188,000 bpd in August, though that increase might prove difficult due to revived US-Iran military attacks in the region.

OPEC’s June crude production rose by +2.34 million bpd to 18.75 million bpd. Vortexa reported on Monday that crude oil stored on tankers that have been stationary for at least 7 days rose +31% w/w to 90.03 million bbl in the week ended July 17. Wednesday’s weekly EIA report was mostly negative for crude oil and products.

EIA crude inventories unexpectedly rose +2.01 million bbl versus expectations of a -1.95 million bbl decline. Also, EIA gasoline supplies rose by +765,000 bbl versus expectations of a -1.9 million bbl decline. In addition, EIA distillate stockpiles rose by +1.

4 million bbl, a larger build than expectations of +825,000 bbl. On the positive side, crude supplies at Cushing, the delivery point for WTI futures, fell -624,000 bbl. Wednesday’s EIA report showed that (1) US crude oil inventories as of July 17 were -5.

3% below the seasonal 5-year average, (2) gasoline inventories were -7.1% below the seasonal 5-year average, and (3) distillate inventories were -9.6% below the 5-year seasonal average. US crude oil production in the week ending July 17 fell -0.5% w/w to 13.

798 million bpd, just below the record high of 13.862 million bpd posted in the week of November 7. Baker Hughes reported last Friday that the number of active US oil rigs in the week ended July 17 rose by +7 to a 13-month high of 452 rigs, up from the 4.

25-year low of 406 rigs posted in December 2025. However, the number of US oil rigs remains sharply below the 5.5-year high of 627 reported in December 2022. On the date of publication, Rich Asplund did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article.

All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. For more information please view the Barchart Disclosure Policy here. The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.

Barchart

Jul 23, 2026strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIran

IDF to deal 'crushing blow' to Iran, if it attacks Israel — Ynet

○ 1 source

TEL AVIV, July 23. /TASS/. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will deal "a crushing blow" to Iran, if it attacks the Jewish state, Defense Minister Israel Katz warned, according to the Ynet portal. "We are ready for any development of events. If Iran attacks Israel, we will deal a crushing blow," he said.

Earlier on Thursday, US President Donald Trump said that he was considering carrying out a massive attack on Iran, and the strikes would be harder than before. According to the American leader, Israel will "join the attack in two minutes" if requested by the United States.

However, he added that Washington "does not need anyone" to launch a new military operation. Trump did not specify a deadline for making a decision. The United States and Israel started a war with Iran on February 28. In June, Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding providing for an immediate cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including in Lebanon.

However, on the night of July 8, the United States resumed large-scale strikes against Iran, accusing it of violating the terms of the agreements regarding the Strait of Hormuz.

CurrentsAPI

Jul 23, 2026strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIran

UK 'ready to defend itself' after Iran says bases are 'legitimate targets'

○ 1 source

The British government stated that it stands ready to defend itself following Iranian comments designating UK bases hosting US forces as legitimate targets in response to US military strikes on Iran. Iranian officials described the UK as an accomplice to US operations, while UK policy has allowed US use of bases such as RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia for what the UK has termed defensive purposes.

Permissions for this arrangement, first granted in March, were extended under the current UK government.

Location: Iran

Sean Seddon