‘Safe passage’: The fatal ambiguity at the heart of the Hormuz MoU
A June memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran on safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz contains ambiguous language that fails to clarify governance or operational terms, leaving fundamental questions about administration and authority unresolved and enabling competing interpretations by both parties.
The memorandum of understanding signed in June between the United States and Iran aimed to establish safe passage for commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, yet the agreement's core provision remains legally vague and operationally undefined. Article 5 of the MoU commits both parties to facilitating safe passage but assigns Iran the task of making "arrangements using its best efforts" while directing Tehran to hold dialogue with Oman and discussions with other Gulf states about future administration and maritime services. Notably, the United States—historically the world's primary naval power guaranteeing navigational freedom—is excluded from these talks, and no agreement among parties is required for the arrangement to take effect.
This structural ambiguity creates competing legal interpretations. Iran, which has not ratified the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, argues that the narrower "innocent passage" regime applies rather than the broader "transit-passage" regime that permits continuous and expeditious passage without suspension. As a persistent objector to the convention, Iran contends it is not bound by the international standard. This disagreement permits Iran to claim authority to impose prior notification requirements, designate Iranian corridors, and levy charges framed as fees for security, safety, and environmental services—potentially generating tens of billions of dollars annually according to reports.
The vague language in Article 5 reflects the price of reaching agreement rather than a drafting accident. Both the United States and Iran could sign the memorandum because the wording commits each side to little and allows each to hold fundamentally different expectations about implementation. Within weeks of signing, the arrangement began unraveling as the United States resumed port blockades, both states traded military strikes across the Gulf, and the Trump administration proposed a 20 percent levy on shipping for strait security. Rather than representing a collapse of the deal, these developments represent the logical conclusion of an agreement designed to be signed but not operated.
Bell watches registries and rules change in near-real-time.