The optimistic narrative regarding an imminent, lasting settlement between Tehran and Washington has evaporated. The region has reverted to the situation that prevailed at the onset of the conflict between the U.S. and Iran in February: missile launches, reciprocal strikes, and an escalation that threatens the security of the Gulf and Jordan, as well as the stability of global energy markets. It is as if the Middle East wanted to remind everyone of some hard truths often overlooked by international diplomacy: a ceasefire does not constitute peace, a truce is not a formal agreement, and a temporary silencing of the guns does not signify an end to the war.
More alarmingly, Iran has resumed targeting Gulf Arab capitals, citing the same justifications it has used since the crisis began, based on claims that certain civilian facilities serve military or logistical functions. The reality, however, was different: the strikes hit power plants, water facilities, oil infrastructure, and other vital installations. It is worth noting that in Kuwait, desalination meets 90% of the population’s water needs. In Bahrain, too, desalination plants are responsible for over 80% of the water supply. These attacks prove that this conflict no longer targets only military forces—instead, it is testing the very resilience of these nations by targeting their way of life.
What happened was not a sudden collapse of the U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding of June 17, but rather a predictable outcome of how the negotiations were conducted. Merely sitting around the negotiating table is not, on its own, enough to resolve a conflict. International relations cannot be managed through vaguely drafted terms, but require clear, precise language.
Furthermore, diplomatic efforts require a genuine will to reach a settlement, one that transcends press conferences and token meetings, as well as a focus on the foundational pillars of the understanding and the parties’ capacity to implement it. An agreement that allows each side to claim victory is not a diplomatic success: it is a temporary compromise that is destined to collapse, particularly when each party interprets its terms to suit its own interests. This represents one of the most significant and perilous challenges posed by the June 17 MoU: its ambiguity may have facilitated the signing of a deal, but it also undermined the likelihood of it being implemented.
A Crisis of Trust
Peace agreements are often viewed merely as political decisions, yet in reality, they are complex legal processes. An accord is not forged through diplomatic pleasantries, but through clear obligations, mutually agreed-upon terminology, and mechanisms for implementation, oversight, and sanctions for potential violations, all drafted with such precision as to leave no room for interpretation. The memorandum between Washington and Tehran has demonstrated that the problem lies not in the absence of an agreement, but in the absence of a clear one. Consequently, one article of the accord effectively turned into a source of renewed political, military, and diplomatic conflict.
The nature of the crisis between Washington and Tehran has evolved. In the past, it was disputes over uranium enrichment, sanctions, Iran’s missile program, and regional influence that sparked military confrontations. Today, however, the problem runs deeper—there is a crisis of confidence in the agreement itself.
Iran believes the U.S. will reinterpret the text to suit its political interests. Meanwhile, Washington suspects that Tehran is using every lull in hostilities to regroup and bolster its military capabilities. Consequently, it is becoming increasingly difficult to reach a new agreement, as there is not only a dispute over the specific provisions of the MoU, but a crisis of faith in the value of the document itself. This represents a critical risk for the negotiation process: a lack of trust not only hinders the implementation of the current agreement, but also prevents the conclusion of a new one.
This revives a perennial question that arises with every escalation in the Gulf: Can military force alone guarantee confidence in the validity of international agreements and the rule of international law—particularly regarding the security of navigation via the Strait of Hormuz?
The realistic answer is far more complex than the political rhetoric suggests. While U.S. naval forces may have the capacity to escort vessels, intercept attacks, and secure temporary corridors, they cannot—on their own—bring about lasting stability in one of the world’s most vital maritime passages.
Stability is not created merely by the presence of naval fleets, but by political and legal frameworks that all sides agree to respect. In the absence of such frameworks, any military operation will remain a stopgap measure, and any success on the ground will be merely tactical, never evolving into a sustainable security architecture.
Therefore, the belief that the Strait of Hormuz can be kept open through force alone is not a long-term strategy. It is a bet that the crisis can be managed, rather than resolved.
War Cannot Build a Regional Order
Armies may be able to destroy military bases, shoot down drones, or intercept missiles, but they cannot establish a stable political order. Modern history demonstrates that while force can alter the course of battles, it is far less capable of building the foundations of peace. Consequently, any renewed U.S.-Iranian military confrontation, regardless of the successes it may achieve, will not, on its own, produce a lasting regional security architecture. Ultimately, the two sides will find themselves compelled to return to the very negotiating table they previously abandoned, but with greater losses and diminished trust, and to draft more complex terms. Wars shift the positioning of military forces, but they do not eliminate the need for diplomacy.
Yet perhaps the clearest lesson from this latest round of tensions is that Gulf states are no longer merely collateral casualties of the U.S.-Iran conflict. They now represent one of its direct battlegrounds.
When power plants, water facilities, ports, and oil installations become targets for missile strikes, the conflict is no longer simply a dispute between two powers; it becomes a threat to the structure of the modern state in the Gulf—and to the global economy, which relies heavily on stability in the region.
Therefore, continuing to tether Gulf security solely to the outcomes of negotiations between Washington and Tehran is no longer sufficient. Today, the region needs a more independent regional security framework, based on collective deterrence, the protection of infrastructure, and guaranteed freedom of navigation, so that Gulf security is no longer held hostage to the volatility of U.S.-Iran relations.
Despite all the signs of escalation, the strategic reality remains unchanged. The U.S. cannot impose a new regional order through military force alone, nor can Iran sustain an indefinite, open-ended confrontation, given the economic and military pressures it is facing.
Ultimately, a return to negotiations is simply a matter of time. Yet that return will not be easy. The next round will not revolve solely around sanctions or Iran’s nuclear program. Rather, it will center on crafting an agreement that leaves no room for ambiguity, one that precisely defines each side’s obligations and establishes clear mechanisms for monitoring, implementation, and accountability. The era of loosely defined agreements is over. The various belligerents and parties affected by the conflict have realized that the very ambiguity that facilitated the signing of the latest agreement also accelerated its collapse.
Thus, the real question is not whether Washington and Tehran will return to the negotiating table, but whether they will learn from recent experiences, and acknowledge that an agreement open to multiple interpretations is not truly an agreement at all, but a temporary truce, pending the next round of conflict.
The prospects for a settlement hinge on shared will, clear commitments, and adherence to the terms of the agreement. Unless these conditions are met, any truce in the region will be nothing more than a brief respite between two inevitable wars.
