Will US-Iran strikes unravel the Hormuz agreement? – Latest news from Azerbaijan

Feels like: 20.4°C20.4°F | Overcast

Just days after the United States and Iran signed a preliminary memorandum of understanding (MoU) aimed at ending months of conflict, the two sides have exchanged fresh military strikes, raising serious concerns about whether the fragile agreement can survive.
Both Washington and Tehran accuse each other of violating the ceasefire, while tensions have shifted to one of the world’s most strategically important waterways — the Strait of Hormuz, News.az reports.

The latest confrontation combines military operations, competing legal interpretations of the agreement, and a struggle over one of the global economy’s most vital maritime corridors. With commercial shipping once again under threat, diplomats and analysts warn that continued escalation could jeopardize not only the ceasefire but also global energy security.
The immediate trigger was an alleged Iranian attack on commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
According to the United States, a Singapore-flagged cargo vessel was struck by a projectile near the Omani coast, while several one-way attack drones were launched toward commercial ships. President Donald Trump described the incident as a violation of the ceasefire and ordered retaliatory strikes against Iranian military facilities along the country’s southern coastline.
Iran rejects the American narrative, arguing that Washington itself violated the memorandum by attacking coastal military infrastructure. Tehran insists the US strikes breached both the ceasefire agreement and international law, accusing Washington of escalating tensions rather than preserving peace.
As a result, each side now claims to be responding defensively while blaming the other for undermining the agreement.
The US Central Command said American aircraft struck missile storage facilities, drone launch infrastructure and radar installations located along Iran’s southern coast.
Washington said the operation was intended to prevent further attacks against commercial vessels and protect freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.
US officials argue that safeguarding international shipping is essential because maritime traffic has gradually resumed following the signing of the ceasefire agreement. According to the Pentagon, allowing attacks on civilian shipping would undermine confidence in the entire peace process.
Iran, however, says one of the strikes landed near Sirik Port in Hormozgan Province but caused no significant damage to port facilities or commercial operations.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced retaliatory attacks against American military positions in the region, although it did not disclose specific targets.
The IRGC warned that any additional American attacks would be met with a broader military response. Meanwhile, Iranian officials continue insisting that they possess both the legal authority and military capability to regulate navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.
Tehran also criticized efforts to establish alternative shipping routes closer to Oman’s coastline, arguing that vessels should only use navigation corridors approved by Iranian authorities.
This position reflects Iran’s broader strategy of using control over Hormuz as leverage during negotiations with Washington.
The memorandum of understanding signed on June 15 was designed as a temporary framework to halt hostilities while creating space for broader negotiations.
Among its key provisions was a commitment to restore safe commercial navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran agreed to facilitate the passage of merchant vessels without charging transit fees during an initial 60-day period.
The agreement also called for discussions involving Iran, Oman and Gulf states regarding future arrangements for managing navigation through the strategic waterway.
However, the memorandum left many critical questions unanswered, including what would happen after the temporary period expires and how disputes over alleged violations would be resolved.
The Strait of Hormuz remains the world’s most important maritime energy corridor.
Around one-fifth of global oil consumption and a significant share of international liquefied natural gas exports pass through the narrow waterway connecting the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman.
For Iran, Hormuz represents far more than a shipping lane. It is one of the country’s strongest geopolitical bargaining tools. Iranian officials argue that any future security framework must recognize Tehran’s role as the principal coastal power responsible for managing navigation.
The United States and Gulf countries reject Iran’s interpretation, insisting that international shipping must remain free from political control, transit fees or unilateral restrictions.
The disagreement has become one of the largest obstacles to a permanent settlement.
Iran has long viewed the Strait of Hormuz as its greatest strategic leverage against Western pressure.
By influencing maritime traffic, Tehran gains bargaining power in negotiations over sanctions, regional security and military issues. Iranian officials argue that surrendering this leverage without broader concessions would weaken the country’s negotiating position.
The recent war further reinforced that belief after Iran demonstrated its ability to disrupt one of the world’s most critical shipping routes, causing significant volatility in global energy markets.
This explains why Iranian leaders continue insisting that any future arrangement must acknowledge Iran’s central role in administering navigation through the strait.
Every military incident involving the Strait of Hormuz immediately attracts worldwide attention because of the waterway’s importance to international trade.
Shipping companies closely monitor security conditions, while insurers raise premiums whenever military risks increase. Even isolated attacks can delay cargo movements, increase transportation costs and contribute to higher global oil prices.
Although commercial traffic has partially resumed under the ceasefire framework, continued military exchanges create uncertainty that discourages shipping operators from returning to normal schedules.
For energy-importing countries across Asia and Europe, prolonged instability could translate into higher fuel costs and renewed supply concerns.
Many analysts believe the memorandum is facing its most serious test since it was signed.
The latest military exchanges have exposed fundamental disagreements over how the agreement should be interpreted, particularly regarding freedom of navigation, military operations and control of the Strait of Hormuz.
Despite the escalation, neither side has formally withdrawn from the memorandum. Diplomatic channels remain active, and negotiations on a broader settlement are expected to continue.
Nevertheless, repeated military incidents significantly increase the risk that mutual accusations, operational misunderstandings or additional attacks could derail the peace process before a permanent agreement is reached.
For now, the ceasefire remains in place, but its long-term survival depends on whether Washington and Tehran can prevent military confrontations in the Strait of Hormuz from overwhelming ongoing diplomatic efforts.
News.Az 
News.Az is an Azerbaijani informational-analytical news portal that publishes a wide range of content, including analytical materials, in-depth articles, insightful commentaries, and the latest news.
© 2009-2026 NEWS.AZ | Any use of materials is allowed only if there is a hyperlink to News.Az. All rights are reserved.

source