Notwithstanding the MoU signed with great fanfare by the USA and Iran as parties to the conflict, and Pakistan as guarantor, the signatories agreed to call it the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding to appreciate the efforts made by the Pakistani leadership for the ceasefire and the cessation of the war. This was a significant development and was profusely appreciated by world leaders. However, given the acute trust deficit between the USA and Iran, many analysts were doubting any smooth sailing in the technical talks to resolve the decades-long complex issues between the two countries.

The talks have not actually got off the ground. In preliminary meetings, the delegations differed on the interpretation of certain clauses of the MoU. The USA wants Iran to relinquish its control of the Strait of Hormuz, paving the way for free maritime traffic. In contrast, the Iranians cling to the MoU clause referring to a framework for the regulation of the passage of maritime traffic and charges for the regulatory services provided by the two littoral states. In reality, the Strait of Hormuz has emerged as the sticking point, more contentious and inflammatory than the Iranian Nuclear Programme.

It appears that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are not in favour of yielding their control of the Strait, which has been the most effective leverage in their hands to influence the direction of the war by hurting the economy of the American allies in the Gulf and bringing the world's oil supply close to a standstill. The potential collapse of the global........

© The Nation