On July 6, Iran’s IRGC Navy targeted three commercial ships sailing under US protection through Omani waters, what is called the southern route or safe route to use CENTCOM’s terminology. The shots were meant to disable the engine function, not to sink the vessels.

The US retaliated the next day by launching a wave of airstrikes against Iranian missile launch sites, coastal radars, and other military assets.

On July 8, while speaking to the media at the NATO summit in Ankara, US President Donald Trump declared that the ceasefire and the MoU were “over”. Predictably, Iran continues to retaliate to US strikes and the situation has since escalated.

Despite the ongoing attacks and counter attacks, neither side has so far  formally annulled the MoU. On July 13, Iran’s Foreign Ministry announced that it is suspending its obligations under the MoU, ruling out upcoming rounds of talks. Iran says the memorandum has entered a “crisis phase” but has framed the refusal to comply as a reaction to US violations rather than a formal, permanent termination of the framework itself. 

On the US side, Trump has stated that while he personally views dealing with Iran a “waste of time,” he is allowing his diplomatic team to continue talking if they wish. The US State Department and other officials told Al Jazeera that Washington remains formally committed to finding a permanent peace agreement and exploring technical-level discussions.

How does one unpack this situation? Many analysts put the blame for this round of fighting on Iran. Some, including in Pakistan, have argued that Iran should have looked at sanctions relief rather than insisting on controlling the Strait. Others have spoken about the illegality of collecting tolls. Still others blame Iran for being intransigent and point to hardline elements within the IRGC who want to upstage the moderates and were not happy with the MoU.

These analyses miss the point and suffer from a framing bias, which then leads to a flawed causal chain. Put differently, the analyses adopt a geopolitical frame that views the US Navy as a default, passive guarantor of global commons — securing safe passage for ships through the Strait — which blinds them to how that action will act as a catalyst in regional escalation in this case.

To make it clearer, these formulations suffer from both a methodological and an analytical problem. By starting the timeline only at the moment Iran fired at the ships, they........

© The Friday Times