One Clause, Two Readings? How Article 5 Of US-Iran Peace Deal Is Fueling Fresh Tensions Over Hormuz

Last Updated:June 28, 2026, 23:42 IST

At the centre of the latest exchange of strikes is Article 5 of the US-Iran memorandum of understanding (MoU), a clause that both sides appear to interpret differently.

Barely two weeks after Washington and Tehran signed a fragile peace memorandum, the agreement is already facing its first major test.

At the centre of the latest exchange of strikes is Article 5 of the US-Iran memorandum of understanding (MoU), a clause that both sides appear to interpret differently when it comes to the administration and security of the Strait of Hormuz.

The disagreement has reignited tensions over one of the world’s most strategically important waterways, with analysts warning that differing interpretations of the agreement could undermine the ceasefire before the 60-day implementation period ends.

What Does Article 5 Say?

The fifth article of the MoU requires Iran to facilitate the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and ensure the safe passage of commercial shipping after months of disruption.

It states: “Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge, for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa."

The agreement also requires Iran to remove technical and military obstacles, complete demining operations within 30 days, and immediately resume commercial traffic through the waterway.

However, the final portion of Article 5 has emerged as the principal source of disagreement.

It states that Iran will hold discussions with Oman and other Gulf littoral states to determine the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz, “in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states."

While Tehran interprets this as recognising Iran’s primary authority over the strait during the transition period, Washington has pushed for broader coordination involving Oman and international maritime agencies to safeguard shipping.

Why Have Tensions Flared Again?

The latest escalation began on Friday after a commercial vessel transiting the Strait of Hormuz was struck by a projectile. Although Iran did not claim responsibility for the attack, the United States responded by carrying out strikes on Iranian positions, accusing Tehran of threatening freedom of navigation through the waterway.

The exchange marked the first direct military confrontation between the two sides since the MoU was signed earlier this month.

Control of the Strait of Hormuz has remained one of the biggest sticking points throughout the negotiations. While the agreement calls for the resumption of commercial shipping, Iran has continued to insist that any future administration of the waterway must recognise its sovereign role.

Tehran has also floated the idea of levying transit charges on vessels using the strait, a proposal firmly rejected by the United States and Gulf countries, whose energy exports depend heavily on the route.

What Are Experts Saying?

Political analysts and maritime experts say the renewed tensions stem less from the wording of Article 5 itself than from the sharply different interpretations being advanced by Washington and Tehran.

Speaking to Qatar-funded Al Jazeera, Hassan Ahmadian, an associate professor at the University of Tehran, argued that the United States appears to be retreating from the agreement it signed earlier this month.

“The United States wants different arrangements in place as opposed to the MoU that it itself signed," he said.

Ahmadian further argued that Washington was attempting to reinterpret the agreement while expecting Iran to continue adhering to its commitments.

Wolfgang Pusztai, a Vienna-based defence analyst, offered a similar assessment, saying the two sides fundamentally disagree over the future governance of the Strait of Hormuz.

According to Pusztai, Iran insists on retaining control over the strategic waterway, while the United States and Arab states remain focused on guaranteeing unrestricted commercial shipping.

“In order to underline its point of view, Iran has now twice attacked ships, and it doesn’t really come as a surprise that the US retaliated," he said, adding that the scale of the military exchanges nevertheless suggested both sides were still seeking to avoid a broader conflict.

Could The Dispute Grow Worse?

Matthew Wright, Principal Freight Analyst at Kpler, told CNN that the latest confrontation should not be viewed as the collapse of the peace agreement but as evidence that the implementation phase remains uncertain.

“This is not back to square one, but it makes it very clear that we are still in the 60-day ceasefire rather than an absolute guarantee that the Strait of Hormuz is on a certain path of reopening," Wright said.

He warned that unless the disagreements over implementation are resolved before the ceasefire period expires in mid-August, commercial shipping could become increasingly unpredictable.

“If the disagreements are not ironed out by mid-August, we might end up seeing the three routes being used in a more chaotic manner and in a less safe way," he told CNN.

About the Author

Shankhyaneel Sarkar

Shankhyaneel Sarkar is a senior subeditor at News18. He covers international affairs, where he focuses on breaking news to in-depth analyses. He has over five years of experience during which he has c...Read More

News world One Clause, Two Readings? How Article 5 Of US-Iran Peace Deal Is Fueling Fresh Tensions Over Hormuz

Read More