The memorandum essentially punted that issue
Iran attacked the M/V GFS Galaxy, causing engine damage and leaving one crew member missing; the U.S. responded with airstrikes to degrade Iran's attack capabilities. Iran demands vessels use northern routes through its waters and has threatened to close Hormuz entirely, contradicting a June memorandum allowing safe passage without tolls.
- M/V GFS Galaxy attacked by IRGC; one crew member missing
- Third U.S. airstrike on Iran in one week
- June 17 memorandum left transit routes undefined
- Iran demands northern routes through its waters; U.S. escorts southern route
The U.S. conducted airstrikes against Iran Saturday after the Revolutionary Guard attacked a commercial vessel in the Strait of Hormuz, marking the third strike this week amid disputes over shipping routes and toll arrangements.
On Saturday, President Trump ordered the U.S. military to strike Iran for the third time in a week. The trigger was fresh: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had just attacked the M/V GFS Galaxy, a container ship flying a Cypriot flag, as it moved through the Strait of Hormuz along a southern route protected by American forces. The strike set the vessel on fire, crippled its engine room, and left one crew member missing. The ship could not continue.
The U.S. military's response was swift and deliberate. Central Command released a statement framing the airstrikes as a way to "degrade Iran's ability to attack civilian mariners and commercial ships freely transiting the strait." Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was blunter: "Iran made a poor choice. Now they pay."
But the real dispute runs deeper than tit-for-tat strikes. Iran's Revolutionary Guard announced it had closed the Strait of Hormuz to all traffic "until further notice." No vessel would be permitted through. This was not a spontaneous reaction—it was the culmination of a fundamental disagreement over how the waterway should operate. Tehran demands that ships use a northern route through Iranian territorial waters. The U.S. military has been escorting vessels along the southern route, near Oman's coast, which Iran views as a challenge to its authority.
The two countries had signed a memorandum of understanding on June 17, meant to reopen the strait and restore safe passage. Iran agreed to "make arrangements using its best efforts" to ensure ships could transit safely and pledged not to charge tolls for sixty days. But the agreement contained a critical gap: it never specified which routes vessels should take. David Goldwyn, who served as the State Department's special envoy for international energy affairs under President Obama, put it plainly: the memorandum "essentially punted that issue." The underlying problem was that Washington and Tehran had not actually reached an understanding about managing traffic through the strait.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright had made the American position unmistakable weeks earlier. Speaking at a New York conference on June 24, he said the U.S. military would "assure the flow of energy out of the Gulf with or without an agreement with Iran." He added: "Iran will not have the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz going forward. That's their key leverage and we're taking that leverage away from them." The message was clear—the U.S. would not allow Iran to weaponize control of one of the world's most critical shipping lanes.
Meanwhile, diplomatic channels remained open, though fragile. On Saturday, Iran's foreign minister arrived in Oman for talks with his Omani counterpart. Oman has long served as a quiet mediator between Washington and Tehran. But a U.S. official made clear that America's technical negotiations team was not participating in those discussions. A senior Middle East diplomat with knowledge of the talks reported that France and the United Kingdom were reviewing proposals from Oman that might allow for navigational fees in the strait—but only if those fees were voluntary and endorsed by the UN's International Maritime Organization. It was a potential compromise, but one that hinged on Iran accepting constraints it had shown no willingness to accept.
The three airstrikes in one week reflected a collision between two incompatible visions. Iran saw the strait as its domain, a source of leverage and revenue. The U.S. saw it as a global commons that must remain open to all traffic. The June agreement had papered over that divide without resolving it. Now, with a crew member missing from a burning ship and American warplanes striking Iranian targets, the cost of that unfinished business was becoming visible.
Notable Quotes
Iran will not have the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz going forward. That's their key leverage and we're taking that leverage away from them.— Energy Secretary Chris Wright, June 24
The underlying problem here is that the memorandum of understanding did not reach an understanding with respect to the management of ship traffic through the strait.— David Goldwyn, former State Department special envoy
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does Iran keep attacking ships if it knows the U.S. will strike back?
Because the attacks are not random. Iran is trying to force a renegotiation. It wants ships to use northern routes through its waters, where it can monitor them, tax them, or control them. The southern route, protected by the U.S., bypasses that leverage entirely.
But didn't they already sign an agreement in June?
They did, but the agreement was incomplete. It promised safe passage and no tolls for sixty days, but it never said which routes ships had to take. So both sides are interpreting it differently. Iran thinks it can still demand the northern route. The U.S. thinks the agreement means ships can go where they want.
What does Iran actually want?
Control and revenue. If ships must use northern routes, Iran can charge fees, inspect cargo, or deny passage to vessels it dislikes. The U.S. is saying that won't happen—it's willing to fight to keep the strait open on its terms.
Is there any way out of this?
Maybe. Oman is proposing a compromise: voluntary navigational fees approved by the UN. But that only works if Iran accepts that it can't force ships into its waters. The real question is whether Iran will accept limits on its leverage, or whether it will keep attacking until something breaks.
What happens to the crew member who went missing?
That's the human cost no one talks about. One person is gone, and the ship is damaged beyond immediate repair. There are dozens of these vessels transiting the strait every day. Each one carries a crew that didn't sign up to be caught in a geopolitical standoff.