The Islamabad Memorandum did not collapse simply because shipping attacks resumed. It failed because Washington and Tehran signed one text while understanding the bargain differently.

The obvious explanation for the collapse of the Islamabad MoU is the correct one as far as it goes: attacks on commercial shipping resumed in the Strait of Hormuz, Washington revoked Iran’s oil licence, the strikes restarted and on 8 July President Trump declared the memorandum “over”. Iran, or something wearing Iran’s colours, broke the deal. Case closed.

Except that this explains the trigger and not the collapse. Ceasefires absorb violations all the time. This one had no capacity to absorb anything, because the two governments had signed a single text, while holding incompatible ideas of what either of them had just given up. The shipping attacks did not create that problem. They revealed how little the agreement had been built to survive.

Start where Washington starts and give it its best argument rather than its worst.

The best argument is not that Tehran is irrational or lying. It is that Tehran is not a single actor and cannot deliver what it signs. The Islamic Republic is a coalition of the presidency, the Supreme Leader’s office, the Revolutionary Guard and a network of partners with their own budgets and their own grievances. An American negotiator who concludes that Iranian commitments are worthless is not necessarily indulging a caricature. He may simply have noticed that the man across the table does not control the men with the limpet........

© Pearls and Irritations