The memorandum of understanding signed by the United States and Iran in June was supposed to defuse the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz.
But the wording in the 14-point memo is vague — and the two sides have contradictory interpretations.
The clause, which is in the fifth paragraph of the agreement, reads as follows:
Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only
American officials want that to mean the Strait is fully open for business. But Iran sees the memorandum as grounds for dictating where ships can sail. It wants trade to pass along a route near Iran, so it can charge fees.
The memorandum does not include a guarantee that ships can safely sail any portion of the strait. At Iran’s insistence, it acknowledges Iran’s power in the waterway. And it postpones the question of fees until another stage of talks.
On Monday, President Trump announced — and then quickly walked back — his own plan to charge fees on ships there, in return for providing security. He has brought up the idea several times, even as top aides have said the waterway should be toll-free.
Former American officials and analysts said that disagreement is not surprising, given the wording.
Diplomats and lawyers typically hammer out every single word of a contract or treaty, so there is little ambiguity to exploit. Here, the wording is so vague that both sides can read what they want into the negotiated document.
“No one should be surprised that Iran views that as explicitly giving them an enduring role controlling passage through Hormuz,” Michael Ratney, a retired diplomat who was the most recent U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, recently told The New York Times.
