So much for the memorandum of understanding.
The latest round of missile strikes in the Persian Gulf has made one thing painfully clear: whatever hopes existed that the agreement could stabilize the region have evaporated. The memorandum of understanding, which many critics argued favored Iran from the outset, appears to have lasted only as long as it was convenient for Tehran.
That should surprise no one.
The uncomfortable reality is that Iran's leadership has repeatedly demonstrated that agreements are tactical tools rather than lasting commitments. If violating a deal offers a strategic advantage, history suggests it will take that opportunity. The renewed attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz are simply the latest example.
From Iran's perspective, the calculation is understandable, even if it is dangerous. The regime endured an intense U.S. air campaign, absorbed significant military losses, and still managed to survive. More importantly, it succeeded in something that had long been viewed as almost unthinkable: effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most vital maritime chokepoints. That achievement undoubtedly emboldened Tehran.
By attacking vessels in the strait again, Iran appears determined to reinforce the message that it—not the international community—controls passage through those waters. If that was the objective, the memorandum of understanding was never more than a temporary pause.
The United States deserves credit for refusing to pretend otherwise. Instead of preserving a "peace process" that Iran had already undermined, Washington responded militarily and reinstated sanctions on Iranian oil exports. Those were appropriate first steps.
But they are only first steps.
The larger objective cannot simply be to punish Iran for a few days. It must be to restore confidence in international shipping. Tanker operators, shipping companies, insurers, and global energy markets all depend on one simple assumption: that commercial vessels can travel through the Strait of Hormuz without becoming military targets.
Right now, that confidence has been badly shaken.
Restoring it will take more than missile strikes. It will require sustained military pressure, effective maritime security operations, and a long-term commitment to ensuring freedom of navigation. That mission may take months, perhaps longer. It will not be easy, but protecting one of the world's most important waterways has consequences far beyond the Persian Gulf.
Allowing Iran to dictate who may pass through the strait would establish a dangerous precedent. If one nation can effectively seize control of an international maritime chokepoint through force, others may be tempted to do the same elsewhere. The implications would extend well beyond the Middle East, threatening global commerce and international law.
Unfortunately, the administration has complicated its own position politically. It has struggled to build strong public support at home and has failed to secure congressional backing before becoming more deeply involved in the conflict.
Winning that support matters.
Unlike many foreign policy disputes, freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz affects nearly every industrialized economy. European nations, Gulf states, and many Asian countries all rely on uninterrupted shipping through the waterway. Those governments have every reason to support efforts that restore open transit.
But coalition-building requires moral clarity.
Earlier suggestions that the United States should charge fees for protecting the strait or expect "MASSIVE" Gulf investments in return only distracted from the strongest legal and diplomatic argument available. The United States does not need to justify protecting international waters through transactional bargaining. It already has a far stronger case rooted in established international law.
As Secretary of State Marco Rubio put it on June 23, "No country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway. That's existing international law. That's the way it is."
That principle should remain at the center of America's response.
This is no longer about salvaging a failed memorandum of understanding. That chapter has closed. The challenge now is ensuring that international waterways remain exactly that—international. If the United States and its allies fail to defend that principle, the consequences will reach far beyond the Persian Gulf.
Sometimes agreements fail because both sides misunderstand one another. Other times they fail because one side never intended to honor them in the first place. The collapse of this memorandum increasingly looks like the latter.
