The Strait of Hormuz has once again become one of the world’s most dangerous maritime flashpoints after at least three commercial vessels were reportedly attacked near the strategic waterway. Washington has responded by revoking its general license allowing Iran to sell oil in line with the Memorandum of Understanding, arguably the most tangible benefit Iran has received to date under the deal. That move is likely to provoke sharp responses from Iran and could snowball into a crisis. Unless resolved soon, disputes over maritime control, freedom of navigation, and the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding itself risk returning the U.S., Iran and Israel to a state of war.
.jpg){kind=link}
According to U.S. officials, Iran fired at least two missiles toward commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz on Monday and a third on Tuesday morning, causing significant damage to the vessels but without casualties. UK Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) reported that one of the vessels was struck east of Lima, Oman, on its port side by an unidentified projectile, causing a fire.
Reuters later reported that one of the damaged vessels was a Qatari liquefied natural gas (LNG) carrier. According to three informed sources, the crew was evacuated after the ship transmitted a distress signal following the strike. Reuters also reported that the vessel had suffered significant damage and was at risk of explosion, raising the stakes of the incident far beyond a routine maritime security episode. It marked the first reported attack on a Qatari LNG carrier since the start of the U.S.-Israel-Iran war. Qatar, alongside Oman and Pakistan, has played an important intermediary role in communications between Tehran and Washington and sent senior officials to participate in the funeral ceremony for the late Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
The diplomatic fallout was immediate. Qatar condemned the attack on its LNG carrier and formally held Iran legally responsible. Majed Al Ansari, spokesperson for Qatar’s Foreign Ministry, described the targeting of the Qatari vessel as “an unacceptable attack on the safety and security of international navigation” and said Doha considers Iran fully legally responsible for the attack and for any damages or consequences arising from it. Tehran had not publicly responded to Qatar’s accusation at the time of writing. Reuters also reported that a Saudi tanker was damaged off the coast of Oman, although the exact circumstances remain under investigation.
The U.S. has subsequently moved to revoke the general license allowing Iran to sell oil and petroleum-based products. According to a senior U.S. official, “As President Trump and the administration have repeatedly affirmed, the MOU in effect with Iran is entirely performance-based. Iran will only reap benefits if they exhibit good behavior. Iran’s actions in the Strait were wholly unacceptable to the United States and will be met with consequences. Our negotiators continue to work in good faith towards a final deal.” Yet, this is a highly consequential move and may trigger further Iranian retaliation, particularly given past American steps to renege on sanctions relief obligations in past agreements.
The attacks occurred amid a deepening dispute over who has the authority to regulate maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran insists that vessels should use the navigation corridor designated by Tehran, while a separate southern route closer to Omani waters is supported by Washington and some international shipping interests. Tehran views that southern corridor as a red line, arguing that it violates the “Iranian arrangements” it believes are embedded in the June 18 Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding.
This dispute reflects a broader clash over the interpretation of the MOU. Iran’s interpretation is that the memorandum effectively recognizes Tehran’s central role in controlling and managing security arrangements in the Strait of Hormuz. In this reading, the lifting of the U.S.-backed maritime blockade and the regulation of shipping lanes must occur within an Iranian-defined framework. By contrast, Oman’s initiative, supported by the United States, appears to seek a more internationalized or alternative navigation arrangement that reduces reliance on Iranian-designated routes. This has turned the southern route near Oman into one of Tehran’s clearest postwar red lines.
Reflecting that position, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, a member of Iran’s parliamentary National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, warned that “any action in the Strait of Hormuz without coordination with Iran is doomed to fail.” He added that decisions regarding a change in the governing regime of the Strait had been made at the “highest levels of the system” and would be implemented. Boroujerdi also said Iran’s Parliament is pursuing legislation on the “management of the Strait of Hormuz,” signaling an attempt to formalize Iran’s claim to a more direct role in regulating passage through the waterway.
The maritime crisis has also intersected with escalating political threats. Before the latest attack, President Donald Trump warned that the United States would either reach an agreement with Iran or “finish the job,” while threatening that U.S. forces could target Iran’s bridges, power grid, and other critical infrastructure if diplomacy fails. Although these remarks preceded the attack on the Qatari LNG carrier, they contributed to the coercive atmosphere surrounding the negotiations.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi responded by saying that final negotiations cannot begin as long as threats against Iran continue. Referring to Article 13 of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, Araghchi said the provision is clear: final-status talks will not begin while Iran remains under threat. He called on Washington to honor its signature and said neither the Iranian people nor Iran’s armed forces are intimidated by threats.
This creates a dangerous diplomatic and military test. Iran is certain to respond to the revocation of its sanctions relief, while the U.S. may contemplate further steps including military strikes on Iranian soil. A vicious cycle could easily take hold that threatens the MOU as a whole.
The conflict is no longer simply about whether ships can pass through the Strait, but about sovereignty, maritime governance, and Iran’s desire to preserve the Strait of Hormuz as one of its most important bargaining chips in negotiations with Washington. Oman’s southern corridor initiative, therefore, has become more than a technical navigation proposal; it has become a challenge to Iran’s leverage.
The attacks have already begun affecting global energy markets. Oil prices rose more than 2%, tanker freight rates climbed, and commercial shipping companies began reassessing transit through the Strait as concerns over maritime security intensified.
The crisis now combines threats to global energy security, competing interpretations of the June 18 MOU, regional diplomatic fallout with Qatar, and uncertainty over whether Iran or the United States will respond militarily. Without urgent deconfliction, clearer maritime rules, and a renewed diplomatic channel, conflict in the Strait Hormuz could quickly transform a fragile postwar arrangement into a broader regional crisis.