One month ago, Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding intended to create a narrow window for diplomacy to end their months-long war in the Middle East.
The interim agreement was meant to buy 60 days: two months for both sides to step back, halt hostilities and negotiate a durable arrangement.
Instead, halfway through that period, the memorandum itself has become the focus of conflict.
Rather than serving as a road map for de-escalation, the MoU has exposed the deep mistrust between the two sides, with each interpreting its provisions in ways that advance their own interests.
The most consequential disagreement centres on one of the key commitments: Iran's obligation to “make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days” through the Strait of Hormuz.
For Tehran, the language reinforces its claim to oversee maritime security in waters off its coastline. Washington, however, interprets it to mean that Iran must guarantee freedom of navigation and refrain from using access to strategic waterways as leverage.
That gap in interpretation has turned a diplomatic mechanism into yet another point of confrontation.
Since the US and Israeli strikes on Iran in late February, commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz – one of the world's most strategically important maritime chokepoints – has been severely disrupted, sending oil prices higher and raising fears over global energy supplies.
The ceasefire agreement briefly eased those concerns. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps allowed commercial vessels to transit through routes co-ordinated with Tehran, prompting an increase in tanker traffic and helping ease pressure on oil markets. Between June 17 and July 12, nearly 1,080 vessels transited the strait, according to data that analytics firm Kpler shared with The National. This includes sanctioned vessels and tankers operating in the shadow fleet.
The respite proved short-lived.
Iran last week resumed attacks on tankers using routes through Omani waters, and the US responded with strikes on Iran. Late on Saturday, Iran announced the vital waterway had once again been closed. Oman shares stewardship of the strait with Iran.
Since then, hostilities have intensified. Thursday was the fifth consecutive day of US strikes on targets in Iran. Washington revoked a 60-day sanctions waiver on Iranian crude oil and petroleum products, and reimposed its naval blockade on Iranian ports.
Tehran has retaliated against US strikes by targeting American assets in neighbouring countries in the Gulf, as well as Jordan.
The renewed fighting has once again unsettled energy markets. Brent crude, the global benchmark, climbed as high as $87 a barrel this week, after briefly falling below its prewar level of $72 earlier this month. Tanker operators have grown reluctant to sail through the Strait of Hormuz, even with American offers of protection.
View from the Gulf
Only one round of indirect technical talks has taken place in Doha since the MoU was signed on June 17. It failed to yield progress on the most contentious issues, including Iran's stockpile of nuclear material and its uranium enrichment programme.
These unresolved issues matter deeply to Gulf states.
While the deal sought to prevent military escalation, it eschewed some of the region's biggest security concerns, such as Iran's ballistic missile programme and its network of allied armed groups across the Middle East.
The recent attacks have only amplified those concerns.
Iran has continued to target Gulf countries, including Qatar, despite Doha's central role in mediating between Washington and Tehran and helping to broker the deal. The attacks have placed Qatar's position as an intermediary under strain.
Iranian attacks on Qatar ceased following the death of Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa, the former emir and father of the current ruler, Sheikh Tamim. However, attacks on Bahrain, Kuwait and Jordan have continued.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi travelled to Doha on Wednesday to offer condolences following Sheikh Hamad's death, a sign that diplomatic channels may remain open.
What comes next?
Whether the coming weeks bring renewed diplomacy or further escalation is still uncertain.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said on Wednesday that Tehran has no plans to resume negotiations with Washington and remains focused on defending the country. He said Iran's armed forces had demonstrated that any attack on Iranian territory would be met with retaliation.
The picture is no clearer in Washington. US President Donald Trump does not seem to have a plan.
US media have reported that Mr Trump has been presented with options to expand military operations against Iran, including measures discussed during a Situation Room meeting on Tuesday aimed at loosening Tehran's grip on the Strait of Hormuz.
The US President has also threatened to bomb Iranian civilian and energy infrastructure unless Tehran returns to the negotiating table.
Yet observers say a return to full-scale war offers little prospect of resolving the crisis. At the same time, yielding to Tehran's demands could prove equally problematic, strengthening its influence over international shipping lanes, unsettling US allies in the Gulf and complicating efforts to monitor its nuclear programme.
Mr Trump’s former defence secretary, Mark Esper, said the US cannot force Iran to reopen Hormuz through air strikes alone and must instead apply sustained economic pressure.
“I’m not confident that, if we picked up the bombing the way we did months ago and sustained it for a period of time, that that would have a big change,” Mr Esper told the Financial Times. “How do you pressure them? One option is you resort to full military onslaught. The other one is you strangle them economically.”
