The Failed US-Iran Memorandum: The War Continues

The United States has continued its strikes on Iran after the memorandum of understanding, signed last month in Switzerland, finally collapsed. President Donald Trump stated on July 8, 2026: "I think it's over. I don't want to deal with [Iran] anymore."

Former Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, in an extensive analysis for Foreign Affairs, explains the roots of the failure and the possible path toward lasting peace.

Divergent Interpretations of Key Provisions

According to Zarif, the collapse of the memorandum was not surprising. Iran and the US had diametrically opposed interpretations of the provisions concerning the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran believed it had promised, as stated in the memorandum, "to make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels without charge, for only 60 days." They also believed that Iran and Oman would "define the future governance and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in consultation with other littoral states of the Persian Gulf in accordance with applicable international law and the sovereign rights of the littoral states of the Strait of Hormuz."

Washington, on the other hand, believed that Iran had agreed to unconditionally allow free passage through the strait and that the US did not have to respect any arrangements Iran established. "The deal could never have survived such a disagreement. Renewed military confrontation was less a question of 'if' than 'when,'" writes Zarif.

Wars That Changed Perceptions

The conflicts began in June 2025 when Israel launched the first war against Iran, escalating in February 2026 when the United States became directly involved. Israel had persuaded President Trump to join the second war. Zarif notes that these confrontations tested long-held assumptions about coercion and deterrence in the Middle East.

"The US and Israel launched conflicts with Iran under the assumption that sustained military pressure could force Tehran into submission or trigger the collapse of the Islamic Republic. Instead, they found themselves stuck in a strategic quagmire," states the former head of Iranian diplomacy. Iran's territorial integrity and political system have survived, proving the resilience of the Iranian nation and its ability to defend its sovereignty even under the most extreme circumstances. In the wars, the US and Israel killed Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, senior commanders, and innocent schoolchildren.

The Strait of Hormuz as a Matter of Survival

Tehran has again closed off much of the Strait of Hormuz. Zarif explains that the war has forced Iran to now view this waterway as an existential issue for its own security. Before large-scale hostilities began in late February, Iran largely tolerated navigation without interference, although US sanctions did not allow Iran access to most goods passing through the strait.

"Today, Iran's primary goal in the strait is to ensure that adversaries cannot use it to prepare, facilitate, or sustain coercion against Iran, whether military, political, or economic in nature. The previously accepted distinction between commercial and military traffic has become blurred," writes Zarif. Since the weapons and technologies that later targeted Iranian territory, infrastructure, and civilians traveled through the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian decision-makers believe they have the right to restrict the flow of traffic while the war continues.

The Path to Peace and the Role of Israel

Zarif emphasizes that neither Iran nor the US has an interest in sustaining the war. Washington is thereby distracted from its main geopolitical goal of reducing its long-term burden in the region to focus on the Indo-Pacific. A realistic security arrangement, in his view, would require a mutual non-aggression framework, recognition of Iran's territorial integrity, the permanent lifting of all sanctions, and assistance in rebuilding Iran.

The memorandum envisioned the establishment of a $300 billion investment fund for the reconstruction of Iran. On the other hand, Iran would agree to permanent non-proliferation guarantees, including ratification of the Additional Protocol of the International Atomic Energy Agency and potentially legally codifying the fatwa of the late Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, against nuclear weapons.

He is particularly critical of the role of Israel, which he claims consistently acts as a spoiler of peace initiatives. "If it wants peace, the US must consider Israel's role," Zarif urges. He accuses Israel of genocide in Gaza and devastation in Lebanon, and claims it wants to sow chaos throughout the region to maintain military dominance. He reminds that both Trump and Vice President JD Vance promised in the first paragraph of the memorandum to "ensure the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon," yet Secretary of State Marco Rubio last month, during a visit to the region, launched an active campaign to undermine that provision.

Regional Cooperation as the Key to Stability

Zarif concludes that only diplomacy, a new peace agreement, and a security framework created by regional states and for regional states can allow the US to redirect its attention elsewhere. He emphasizes the importance of establishing a regional security network that would build trust among the littoral states of the Persian Gulf through dialogue and cooperation.

However, he warns that the leverage Iran gains from the Strait of Hormuz is fragile. If Tehran repeatedly threatens maritime traffic, it could turn much of the world against itself and spur accelerated international investment in pipelines, ports, and land-based logistics corridors that would bypass the strait. In that case, Iran would permanently lose the ability to use its closure as a deterrent, with serious consequences for global energy security.