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 21, 2026strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranProxy

US strikes Iran for 10th consecutive night as Tehran strikes tanker in the Strait of Hormuz

○ 1 source

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Iran attacked a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz early Tuesday, forcing its crew to abandon the ship, while the United States conducted yet another round of airstrikes targeting the Islamic Republic as they struggle over control of the key waterway.

The 10 consecutive nights of U.S. airstrikes haven’t compelled Tehran to loosen its grip on the strait, through which about a fifth of all crude oil and natural gas traded once passed in peacetime. Even as the U.S. and Iran inch closer to all-out war again, Iran’s interior minister traveled to Pakistan, a key mediator in the conflict, for talks.

However, it remains unclear just what new deal could be reached to end the fighting. The interim deal signed last month that was meant to end the fighting has crumbled. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has largely stalled. And as fighting intensifies, both sides have targeted civilian infrastructure relied on by millions of people.

“Iran and groups supportive of Iran may target other U.S. interests overseas or at locations associated with the United States and Americans throughout the world,” the U.S. State Department said in a new warning to Americans. The escalation has pushed oil prices higher in recent weeks.

Benchmark Brent crude traded Tuesday above $88 a barrel and regular gasoline in the U.S. climbed to an average of $4 a gallon, keeping pressure on Americans’ wallets ahead of midterm elections this fall. Meanwhile, the U.S. military identified two soldiers who were killed in Jordan in attacks that left a third person missing.

Separately, the military confirmed another death in Iraq on Saturday during the “controlled detonation” of a downed Iranian drone. President Donald Trump took to social media on Monday to warn that “Every time Iran kills an American Soldier they will pay for that killing many times over!

” Trump was planning to attend a ceremony on Tuesday evening at Dover Air Force Base, where at least one service member’s remains were due to arrive. US strikes come as ships attacked The U.S. military’s Central Command said Tuesday it targeted “Iranian military command centers, maritime capabilities, missile and drone launch sites and air defense systems.

” It released more footage of bombings that targeted sites in Iran. “American forces remain postured and prepared to hold Iran accountable for unwarranted aggression toward civilian mariners seeking to freely and openly transit the strait,” the command said.

Iranian state media reported that explosions were heard in Fars, Hormozgan, Ilam, Kerman and Sistan and Baluchistan provinces. However, traffic through the strait has slowed to a crawl during the latest violence. Lloyd's List Intelligence said only three ships transited the strait on Sunday.

The British military’s United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations center said a tanker came under attack early Tuesday in the strait off Oman, forcing the crew to abandon the vessel. Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard claimed the attack, as well as two other attacks on ships Monday in the waterway.

The route around Oman has been the one the U.S. military has encouraged ships to travel to avoid Iran’s control. The UKMTO separately reported Tuesday that another previously unknown attack on a ship took place early the previous day. Tehran also hit U.

S.-allied countries throughout the Middle East. Jordan military's said Tuesday that Iran targeted it with five drones and three missiles, all of which were shot down. Bahrain sounded its missile alert sirens Tuesday afternoon as another Iranian barrage targeted the island kingdom, which is home to the U.

S. Navy's 5th Fleet. Nearly 100 US injuries since early July The Pentagon’s chief spokesperson said nearly 100 U.S. service members have been injured since the U.S. restarted strikes on July 7, and 96% of them have returned to duty.

“The vast majority of injuries experienced were minor concussions,” Sean Parnell posted Monday on X in response to a New York Times report that the Pentagon has withheld information about troop injuries from Iranian strikes. He denied that the Pentagon was hiding data about injuries.

However, the Defense Casualty Analysis System, the military’s clearinghouse for reporting deaths and injuries in conflict, has not been updated as of Monday night with the latest attacks. Yemen rebels threaten attacks on other Mideast waterway Yemen’s Houthi rebels announced a maritime embargo against Saudi Arabia on Monday.

The Houthis, who are backed by Iran, said they would block shipping between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden by targeting the Bab el-Mandeb, a maritime chokepoint like the Strait of Hormuz, in response to an attack on Sanaa International Airport last week that they blamed on Saudi Arabia.

With the Strait of Hormuz blocked, Saudi Arabia has been relying on a pipeline to the Red Sea to get millions of barrels of oil out to market. The Houthis earlier demonstrated their ability to disrupt shipping there when they targeted ships for months over the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, with over 100 vessels attacked.

Saudi Arabia’s military said it would keep the waterway open. “All Houthi threats against transiting vessels will be dealt with swiftly and firmly, as such threats are a blatant violation of international law and fall under acts of maritime piracy,” said Maj.

Gen, Turki al-Malki, a Saudi military spokesman. A glimmer of hope for diplomacy Pakistan has intensified diplomatic efforts in recent days to resuscitate the interim deal. Iranian Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni arrived in Islamabad on Monday for two days of talks with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and others.

On Sunday, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters that the U.S. is still open to negotiating with Iran but that “it has to be real.” “If the door opens to diplomacy — if the guys that want to do something productive for Iran win and take control of that system, or take control of the negotiations — that’ll be a very positive development,” Rubio said.

“That’s not where we are tonight, unfortunately.” Iranian authorities on Sunday said at least 50 people have been killed and 517 wounded in the latest rounds of U.S. strikes. Since the war began on Feb. 28, 17 U.S. service members have been killed.

JON GAMBRELL, Associated Press

Jul 21, 2026strikeUnverifiedUSIranRussiaChina

How the US-Iran conflict has thrown India’s Chabahar plans into doubt

○ 1 source

US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth posted social media images showing damage to a maritime control tower at Iran’s Chabahar port following reported US military strikes, accompanied by the caption “Iran does not control the Strait of Hormuz.” India’s Ministry of External Affairs stated that the Shahid Beheshti terminal operated by India at the port sustained no damage.

The ministry reiterated its position that civilian infrastructure should not be targeted during conflicts.

Location: Iran

Divya A

Jul 21, 2026strikeUnverifiedUSIranProxy

U.S. strikes Iran and Houthis threaten Saudi Arabia shipping as mediators push 10-day ceasefire

○ 1 source

The U.S. Central Command reported conducting strikes on Iranian military command centers, missile and drone sites, and air defense systems on Monday evening. Iran attacked a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz early Tuesday, and Houthi forces declared a maritime embargo against Saudi Arabia.

Reports indicate that mediators have proposed a 10-day ceasefire, while Rystad Energy noted risks of higher oil prices.

Location: Iran

Sam Meredith

Jul 21, 2026strikeUnverifiedIsraelIranProxy

How Houthi Red Sea blockade tightens Iran's grip on energy supplies

○ 1 source

Yemen's Iran-aligned Houthis announced Monday they would impose a maritime blockade on Saudi Arabia, further throttling a global energy market already greatly restricted by Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz. This is why it matters and what it means for the Iran war and the global energy crisis.

It is not clear how the Houthis would carry out a maritime blockade of Saudi Arabia, its northern neighbor along the Red Sea coast, or whether it would include a return to attacks on shipping. Yemen sits on the Bab el-Mandeb strait – the southern gateway to the Red Sea – and closing that would open up a new front in the energy crisis and Iran's overarching conflict with the U.

S. With the Strait of Hormuz already disrupted, the Red Sea has become a critical alternative outlet for Gulf oil and other products. A serious disruption would mean both of the Middle East's major oil export routes are shut simultaneously. Iran's partial blockade of the Strait of Hormuz after Israel and the U.

S. attacked it on Feb. 28 disrupted most oil and other exports from the Gulf, raising prices and delivering a global energy shock. Saudi Arabia responded by diverting more than 70% of its normal daily crude exports to the Red Sea port of Yanbu. Ships from Yanbu bound for Europe go north through the Suez Canal.

Those heading to Asia go south through Bab el-Mandeb. Shipments from Yanbu averaged 4 million barrels per day in recent weeks according to data from Kpler and Signal Ocean, up from around 973,000 bpd a year earlier. Total petroleum volumes transiting Bab el-Mandeb amounted to 7.

4 million bpd in June, or about 7% of global oil output, according to Kpler data, up from 4.2 million bpd last year. That has provided a lifeline for the energy market, helping to keep down global oil prices. Saudi Arabia is considering an expansion of its crude oil pipeline to the Red Sea coast, Reuters reported last week.

When the Houthis launched attacks on Red Sea shipping in November 2023, Gulf oil exports were flowing freely. The Houthis have been in a civil war against the Saudi-backed, internationally recognized government for more than a decade and have attacked Gulf neighbors with missiles and drones.

However, a 2022 truce between the country's warring sides largely held until last week, when Yemen's internationally recognized government said it had struck Sanaa airport to stop an Iranian plane landing. The Houthis said Saudi Arabia was responsible and, in response, fired missiles at Abha airport in the kingdom's mountainous southwest.

A senior Houthi official, politburo member Mohammad al-Farah, then warned in an interview on Iran's Press TV website that if the situation kept escalating, Bab el-Mandeb would be closed. The U.S. says Iran has armed, funded and trained the Houthis with help from Hezbollah.

The Houthis deny being an Iranian proxy and say they develop their own weapons. It is not clear how far the group's stance on Bab el-Mandeb and the Red Sea stems from its own strategic priorities or is being made on Iran's behalf. After Israel's genocidal campaign in Gaza, the Houthis began firing at Israel and on shipping in the Red Sea, saying they were doing so in support of Palestinians.

The attacks severely disrupted global shipping, prompting Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd and other major companies to divert around Africa – a far longer, more expensive route. Red Sea traffic has not recovered since, with traffic through the Suez Canal down 52% in 2025 versus 2023 levels and at its lowest in at least 50 years, Suez Canal Authority data shows.

A U.S.-led mission to restore free navigation in the Red Sea involved repeated strikes on Houthi targets and a campaign that shot down hundreds of drones and missiles. But some Houthi attacks continued until last summer, only ending completely with the Gaza cease-fire in October.

Last month, the Houthis said they would ban ships linked to Israel from the Red Sea after Israel renewed military attacks on Iran. However, that threat was never acted on and shipping groups Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are resuming some Red Sea routes that they had abandoned during the Houthi attacks last year, Maersk said this month.

While Hezbollah and the Iraqi groups joined the war early with rocket and drone fire after the first U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, the Houthis had been comparatively quiet. The group's leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi said on March 5: "Our fingers are on the trigger at any moment should developments warrant it.

" Iranian commanders have repeatedly warned that the Houthis could join the war. The Houthis launched a few missile and drone attacks on Israel in late March and early April. Revolutionary Guards Quds Force commander Esmaeil Qaani said on June 1 they could choke off the Red Sea.

That may now have changed with their announcement of the blockade on Monday against Saudi Arabia in retaliation for what they called the kingdom's siege of its ports and airports, including last week's strike.

Reuters