Did Trump score a self goal in Strait of Hormuz? Clue stayed hidden in US-Iran ceasefire MoU

In the wake of the renewed fighting in West Asia, US President Donald Trump has declared that the interim deal he signed with Iran was "over". But the fighting is a direct result of his inability to abide by the deal that he signed.

The renewed fighting in West Asia stems not from irreconcilable differences over the nuclear programme, but from disagreements over how the Strait of Hormuz should be governed. As the United States attacked Iran in response to Iranian strikes on ships that were not following its directives in the Strait, such as the requirement to use only the designated route, the two countries became locked in a cycle of strikes that has now continued for six days.

Follow our live coverage of the US-Iran war live

Contrary to what Trump has claimed, Iran has simply sought to implement the memorandum of understanding (MoU) that he signed.

Clause 5 of the US-Iran MoU explicitly states: "The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz, in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz."

More from World

The deal that Trump signed therefore explicitly grants Iran and other Persian Gulf states sovereign rights over the Strait, and Iran is merely exercising that right by dictating how ships should transit the waterway. The United States is now bombing Iran for exercising that right.

By signing the MoU, Trump therefore turned the international waters of the Strait into waters subject to Iranian sovereign rights and granted it authority over its administration.

The Strait of Hormuz crisis is entirely of Trump's making

In line with Clause 5 of the MoU, Iran declared that all ships transiting the Strait must use the northern route passing through its territorial waters.

After issuing the directive, Iran struck ships transiting through the southern route along the Omani coast.

Ideally, ships should be free to use the route of their choice in international waters, but the US-Iran MoU ended that freedom in the Strait when Clause 5 granted Iran the right to assert sovereign control over the waterway.

So why were ships still using the southern route? The United States had told them to.

For two months between the signing of the Pakistan-brokered ceasefire and the signing of the MoU, the US Navy had been quietly guiding commercial ships through the Strait along the southern route near the Omani coast, according to The New York Times.

The US military offered some air cover in case Iran attacked, and officers guided ships over the radio. The idea was to keep some oil and gas flowing through the Strait even if in reduced volumes. But the United States did not apparently stop such transit after the signing of the MoU.

Accustomed to such US-facilitated transit through the southern route, ships continued using it after the signing of the MoU. But Iran then attacked them as the MoU had granted it the right to govern the Strait as it saw fit, leading to American attacks and the renewal of the fighting.