Fresh hostilities in Gulf suggest US-Iran memorandum was too broadly worded | US-Israel war on Iran
The sudden outbreak of new hostilities in the Gulf, just 10 days after Iran and the United States signed a memorandum of understanding to end the conflict, threatens to put the two countries back on the warpath.
It appears that the memorandum’s deliberately opaque wordings failed to withstand the pressure of conflicting interpretations, and as a result, supporters of the agreement in Tehran have been left behind. Statements are proliferating that the Iranian government should never have agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz; And not just among the country’s conservatives.
The 14-point document’s wording was deliberately broad on two of the most troubling issues, the Lebanon ceasefire and the strait, in the hope of reaching an agreement as trust between the two sides improves. modus vivendi could be found. Instead, the deal collapses under pressure, with each side accusing the other of violating the terms.
The difficulty in Lebanon is that two ceasefire agreements have been agreed and they oppose each other.
The first ceasefire, mentioned in the memorandum and developed at the Lucerne talks attended by US vice president JD Vance, gave Iran and therefore its proxy Hezbollah a new role in Lebanon. Iran would join a new deconflict mechanism, and it looked as if Israel was being squeezed.
The second, more comprehensive ceasefire, signed by Israel and the Lebanese government in Washington on Friday and overseen by US secretary of state Marco Rubio, reverses all this, leaving out Iran and Hezbollah. This allowed Israel to remain in Southern Lebanon until Hezbollah was completely disarmed; This is a situation that Shiite forces can never accept.
The agreement, signed by Lebanese prime minister and former president of the international court of justice, Nawaf Salam, also included a clause stating that both sides would cease all hostile actions in all legal platforms and that Israel would be immune from prosecution for any war crimes allegedly committed in Lebanon.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded triumphantly to this agreement, saying: “We will remain in the region until the weapons of Hezbollah and the remaining terrorist groups are destroyed.”
However, it is very difficult to understand that the ceasefire signed by the Lebanese government could be even remotely acceptable to Hezbollah or Iran. The agreement is designed to strengthen Lebanese sovereignty, but makes that sovereignty entirely conditional.
The memorandum of understanding was equally ineffective regarding the opening of the Strait of Hormuz.
The document states that Iran will “use its best efforts to make arrangements for the safe passage of commercial ships” through the strait for 60 days. He left “arrangements” and “best efforts” undefined and no reference to any other actions to clear the strait, leaving the impression that Iran was the dominant actor.
The memorandum stated that Iran would, in the future, conduct a dialogue “in consultation with other states bordering the Persian Gulf in line with applicable international law and the sovereign rights of states bordering the Strait of Hormuz” to define the future management and maritime services in the strait.
Although Iran appears to have interpreted this statement to mean that it alone could decide which route ships should follow, Tehran had been working with the UN’s International Maritime Organization and Oman last week on an evacuation plan that would allow hundreds of ships to pass through the strait.
IMO Secretary General Arsenio Domínguez felt that Iran had agreed to implement this plan, which offers a northern and southern route through the strait. But on Thursday morning, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy said ships could only use the northern route to exit the strait, and in the afternoon, the 2015 Singapore-flagged Evergreen container ship Ever Lovely was hit while taking the southern route near Oman.
Domíngues halted the plan, saying the IMO would not put sailors at risk, but ships continued to pass through the strait despite Thursday’s attack.
This incident may have been driven by Iran’s fear that a southern route along the Omani coast would provide the United States with a way to end Iranian pressure. Behind this is an Oman-Iran discussion on a long-term solution for the management of the strait, which Iran has yet to accept.
Oman will want to frame any proposals in the context of Unclos. UN convention on the law of the seaand thus will eliminate tolls. However, Article 41 of the Unclos allows the Strait states to designate sea lanes and establish traffic separation schemes. Article 43 would allow Oman, in consultation with the IMO, to ask stakeholders with common interests in navigation aids in the strait to contribute to a funded “cooperation mechanism” to assist these maritime services. In theory, charges could be levied by Oman for certain navigational safety services if they directly benefit a ship, but there cannot be a general tax.
But for now, as the bombing resumes, creative legal ideas appear to have been put aside as the men of war return to the scene.
