This recent clash highlights both the achievements and limitations of President Donald Trump's diplomatic efforts. Trump utilized military power, sanctions, and overt threats to bring Iran to the negotiating table. The agreement came at a time when fatigue over prolonged conflict was growing, and the blockade of the Hormuz Strait was shaking the global energy market.
However, bringing parties to the negotiating table is one challenge, while managing the aftermath of an agreement is another. The MOU left significant issues, such as the method for Iran's nuclear disarmament, the scope of sanctions relief, and the management of the Hormuz Strait, to be addressed in future negotiations. Notably, the phrasing regarding discussions between Iran and Oman about the future management of the Strait allowed for differing interpretations: Iran saw it as a justification for expanding control, while the U.S. viewed it as a starting point for restoring freedom of navigation.
Ambiguity can sometimes be necessary in diplomacy, especially when it is impossible to resolve all issues at once. However, the problem arises when there are no mechanisms in place to manage that ambiguity. This is particularly critical following an agreement made in the wake of gunfire and missile exchanges. Without a framework to reconcile differing interpretations, the language of the agreement could become a pretext for future clashes rather than a foundation for peace.
Iran's actions also raise concerns. The country appears to be using the peace agreement as a means to expand its control over the Hormuz Strait. Threats and attacks on commercial vessels disrupt international shipping norms, and retaliatory strikes targeting U.S. military bases in the Gulf only heighten the risk of escalation. As Iran leverages the Strait as a bargaining chip, instability in the Middle East could once again pose a threat to the global economy.
Yet, the U.S. cannot resolve these issues solely through stronger airstrikes and harsh rhetoric. Trump has suggested that a military resolution to the Iran issue may be necessary, warning that if it comes to that, Iran would cease to exist. However, such threats may temporarily pressure Iran but do not resolve the underlying conflict over control of the Strait. In fact, they could strengthen hardline factions within Iran.
What is needed now is not a complete abandonment of the logic of power. The U.S. cannot ignore attacks on commercial vessels or fail to respond to actions that threaten international shipping routes. However, military deterrence is effective only when paired with a clear diplomatic framework. It must be established what constitutes a violation, what procedures will be enacted if a violation occurs, and who will monitor and ensure safe passage through the Strait. Without this clarity, the cycle of airstrikes, retaliation, warnings, and further retaliation will only continue.
Future negotiations must clarify the principles for managing the Hormuz Strait alongside the Iran nuclear issue. This cannot be left solely to Iran and Oman. A monitoring and coordination mechanism involving the U.S., Gulf states, major energy-importing nations, and the international shipping industry is essential. The processes for sanctions relief, Strait stability, and nuclear negotiations must be linked and clearly defined in case of agreement violations. Only then can the MOU function as a safety net rather than a mere piece of paper.
Trump's logic of power played a role in halting the war. However, the renewed military confrontations in Hormuz demonstrate that this approach alone cannot sustain peace. Ending a war does not automatically bring about peace. If the U.S. seeks genuine diplomatic success, it must move toward more comprehensive agreements rather than relying solely on threats. A war halted by force cannot be maintained by force alone.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.