Iran’s Gulf offensive jeopardizes U.S. MoU

The fragile ceasefire between the United States (U.S.) and Iran has come under severe strain following a dramatic escalation in the Gulf that threatens to derail ongoing diplomatic efforts.

After Washington accused Tehran of orchestrating attacks against 3 commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. military launched a series of strikes on Iranian military infrastructure while simultaneously reinstating sweeping restrictions on Iran’s oil exports. Tehran responded by launching missiles and drones against U.S. military installations in Bahrain and Kuwait, expanding the confrontation beyond Iranian territory and placing the entire Gulf region on heightened alert.

The military escalation was accompanied by renewed economic pressure as Washington reinstated restrictions on Iranian oil exports, removing a temporary arrangement that had allowed Tehran greater access to international energy markets. Iran condemned the decision as a violation of the spirit of the agreement and accused the U.S. of abandoning diplomacy.

Occurring during the funeral ceremonies for Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the renewed hostilities have cast serious doubt over the viability  of the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding (MoU) and the negotiations that were expected to begin following his burial.

The timing of the escalation and its significance

In an interview with The Beiruter, Paul Salem, Senior Non-Resident Consultant at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), believed that the timing of the confrontation reflects the gradual realization by both Washington and Tehran that they were unable to resolve their fundamental disagreements. The central issue, he explained, was the interpretation of the memorandum’s provisions regarding the Strait of Hormuz.

The 5th article was ambiguous.

The agreement contained ambiguity regarding the future management of the strategic waterway. Tehran interpreted the arrangement as recognizing Iranian authority and control over the Strait, while Washington viewed it as requiring Iran to facilitate the reopening of maritime traffic and restore normal international navigation without granting Tehran control over the passage.

Salem argued that such ambiguity is common in diplomatic memoranda, where certain issues are deliberately left open for future negotiations. However, over time, it became clear that both sides understood the agreement differently and that Iran was attempting to use military pressure to enforce its interpretation.

It became clear that negotiations were not moving forward and that they would not reach an agreement.

In addition, Salem also linked the timing to frustration within the Trump administration over the lack of progress on the nuclear issue. From Washington’s perspective, negotiations had become a repetitive cycle without meaningful results. Meanwhile, Tehran appeared to believe that the U.S. had lost its willingness to escalate militarily and was seeking an exit from confrontation.

According to Salem, Iran’s calculations were based on the assumption that Washington had backed away from military action, prompting Tehran to test American resolve. President Donald Trump’s response, however, followed his characteristic approach of responding with rapid escalation and maximum pressure.

Could the collapse of the MoU lead to an all-out war?

Although U.S. President Donald Trump has suggested that the memorandum has effectively ended, Salem argued that the collapse of the agreement does not necessarily mean an immediate return to a comprehensive regional war.

The more realistic scenario is a continuation of sanctions, partial pressure on Iran, and a conflict somewhere between peace and war.

According to Salem, Trump has little interest in launching a large-scale war because such an escalation would expose Gulf allies and threaten critical energy infrastructure. A major conflict in the Gulf could subsequently severely disrupt oil markets, damage regional economies, and create consequences extending far beyond the Middle East. For this reason, Salem believes Washington is likely to pursue a middle-ground strategy: maintaining pressure on Iran while avoiding a war that could destabilize global energy supplies.

At the same time, Iran could continue attempting to expand its influence over the Strait of Hormuz, potentially seeking financial concessions or transit fees from countries using the waterway. The U.S., meanwhile, would likely maintain economic pressure through sanctions.

The result, according to Salem, would be a situation neither of peace nor full-scale war; a prolonged state of limited conflict where Iran remains influential but increasingly isolated, while Israel may continue conducting occasional strikes against Iranian targets.

The impact on Lebanon and the regional balance

The possible collapse of the U.S.-Iranian track would have significant implications for Lebanon, particularly regarding Hezbollah and the broader regional balance of power, based on Salem’s analysis.

He argued that the crisis represents a setback for Hezbollah, which had previously viewed Iran’s position after the conflict as a strategic success. According to this perception, Iran had resisted American pressure, forced Washington into negotiations, and positioned itself to secure major economic gains that could eventually benefit its allies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon.

This is certainly a setback for Hezbollah. It had initially believed that Iran had resisted American pressure, forced Washington into negotiations, and positioned itself to secure major economic gains that could eventually benefit its allies.

However, Salem suggested that this narrative is now being challenged. Although Iran was not defeated militarily, it remains under significant pressure, facing continued sanctions and uncertainty over its economic future. The expected benefits of a diplomatic breakthrough, including sanctions relief and major financial resources, are now far less likely.

The collapse of negotiations would also undermine the proposed American-Iranian-Lebanese mechanism that had been envisioned as a channel for addressing regional issues. Instead, Salem believes it would strengthen the Lebanese-American-Israeli diplomatic track, reinforcing arguments that Lebanon should rely on state institutions and international partnerships rather than Iranian support.

This strengthens the Lebanese-American-Israeli track, in which Iran is not present, and reinforces the argument that relying on Iran was misplaced.

The developments also coincide with the growing influence of Turkey in the Levant. Salem argued that while Iranian influence dominated the region for decades, Turkey has emerged as an increasingly powerful actor through its relationships with Syria, the Gulf states, Europe, Russia, and the U.S.

This shift could further weaken Hezbollah’s regional environment while strengthening the Lebanese state and Lebanese-Syrian relations. The changing balance of power, particularly following increased Turkish engagement and Syrian diplomatic outreach, represents a broader transformation in the regional order.

Regarding Israel, Salem noted that the impact on Lebanon remains uncertain. Israel may view the breakdown of negotiations with Iran positively, as it reinforces its argument that Tehran cannot be trusted and that military pressure remains necessary. However, the Lebanese situation has its own dynamics, particularly regarding the Israeli presence along the border and domestic political debates ahead of elections.

Hence, the latest escalation highlights the fragility of diplomatic agreements built on unresolved strategic disagreements. The ambiguity surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, stalled nuclear negotiations, and competing interpretations of the memorandum created the conditions for renewed confrontation.