Clause 5: The one clause that could make — or break — US-Iran peace deal

Clause 5 of the fragile US-Iran interim deal has become a flashpoint, a trigger for the series of escalating maritime incidents.

This specific clause of the US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), signed on June 18, 2026, has emerged as one of the most contentious provisions.

Despite the rather simple wordings, it's the biggest unknown. Every phrase, every line is subject to broad interpretation.

This clause could cement — or unravel — the next phase of US-Iran diplomacy.

Iran’s Islamic Republic Guard Corps (IRGC) claims Clause 5 gives it responsibility to make "arrangements" over the Strait, including routing, the US freedom-of-navigation stance puts that interpretation under fire.

Meanwhile, both sides accused each other of violations amid tit-for-tat incidents involving commercial shipping.

What the Clause 5 actually says

The full text of Clause 5 states:

It forms part of a broader 14-point framework (also known as the Islamabad Memorandum) aimed at ending active hostilities, reopening the strait, providing temporary sanctions relief, and setting a 60-day window for final negotiations on issues like Iran's nuclear program.

Why it is contested

The clause is ambiguous. It's a deliberate ambiguity — intended to guarantee the safe resumption of commercial shipping through the strategic waterway after more than 120 days of conflict.

Now, it has become the centre of competing legal interpretations.

Both Washington and Tehran accusing each other of violating the agreement.

Under Clause 5, Iran agreed to use its "best efforts" to ensure the safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz without charge for 60 days, while also undertaking mine-clearing operations and opening talks with Oman on the future administration and maritime services of the strait.

The provision also calls for discussions with other Gulf littoral states and emphasises that any future arrangement must be "in line the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz".

Deep disagreements

What initially appeared to be a confidence-building measure has instead exposed deep disagreements over who ultimately controls one of the world's most important energy chokepoints.

Washington argues that the clause guarantees "freedom of navigation" for 60 days through an international waterway and does not authorise Iran to regulate or charge commercial traffic.

Tehran, meanwhile, has maintained that the agreement formally recognises its role — alongside Oman — in shaping the future administration of the strait, a position Iranian leaders say reflects their sovereignty and security responsibilities.

Tit-for-tat incidents

The dispute intensified after a series of tit-for-tat incidents involving commercial vessels near the Strait of Hormuz.

The US accused Iran of violating the ceasefire after attacks on merchant shipping, prompting retaliatory strikes on Iranian military infrastructure.

Iran rejected the accusations, blamed Washington for escalating tensions, and insisted it retains "primary authority" over security arrangements in the waterway.

The disagreement has unfolded alongside a barrage of public statements on social media and official channels.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly warned that Iran cannot impose charges or restrictions on international shipping, while Vice President JD Vance has vowed that any ceasefire violations would be met with a firm US response.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and United States Central Command have likewise issued statements defending their respective positions as the diplomatic standoff continues.

Conflicting Clause 5 interpretations

Although the ceasefire remains formally in place and indirect negotiations continue through mediators, analysts say the interpretation of Clause 5 may determine whether the 60-day framework evolves into a lasting agreement — or unravels into renewed confrontation over the world's busiest oil transit corridor.

Following the MOU signing, conflict emerged over key points:

• The exact meaning of "best efforts" for safe passage

• What constitutes an authorised route during the 60-day period

• The scope of Iran's role in "future administration" alongside Oman.

Iran interprets it as granting Tehran primary responsibility and authority to designate routes and enforce compliance during the interim period.

The US and others view it as preserving freedom of navigation under international law (including transit passage rights in an international strait under UNCLOS principles), without ceding control to Iran or allowing interference with third-party shipping.

Oman has emphasised toll-free safe passage and rejected Iranian-style toll or fee proposals.

The narrowest part of the strait lies in Iranian and Omani territorial waters, but it functions as an international strait where transit passage cannot be hampered.

Iranian statements

• IRGC: Has asserted that Clause 5 authorizes Iranian control over passage arrangements. It warned of stronger actions against "violating" ships and designated only the northern corridor (through Iranian waters) as authorized, forcing some tankers on the southern (Oman-side) route to turn back.

• The IRGC has linked this to broader ceasefire enforcement and accused the US of encouraging violations.

• Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf (Parliament Speaker and key negotiator): Stressed that Iran and Oman hold sovereign rights over administration per the clause. He conditioned further talks on US implementation of early obligations, including those tied to Hormuz.

• Abbas Araghchi (Foreign Minister): Stated that the clause assigns Iran "responsibility" for safe passage during the 60 days, requiring vessels to coordinate with Iran. He warned against US efforts to create alternative corridors and framed it as recognising Iranian/Omani management.

US views

US officials maintain that the MOU neither cedes control of the strait nor authorises Iran to restrict routes beyond which the IRGC can bomb "non-compliant" vessels.

Moreover, it does not specifically allow the IRGC to impose charges during the 60-day period or beyond the explicit 60-day no-charge window. On the contrary, it calls for the Islamic Republic to "make arrangements using ita best efforts for safe passage for commercial vessels with no charge."

Washington has supported international coordination (including with Oman and the IMO) for safe, free navigation.

The US military has conducted strikes in response to Iranian actions against shipping, viewing them as "violations" of the MoU.

The US emphasises that bilateral understandings cannot override international law on transit passage.

Incidents, such as attacks on vessels (e.g., Ever Lovely, Kiku) and U.S. retaliatory strikes on IRGC assets, have been blamed on competing interpretations, with each side accusing the other of undermining the MOU.

Does Clause 5 give the IRGC the right to hit ships on non-designated routes (e.g., Oman Route)?

No, according to the text and prevailing international legal views. The deal does not define a specific route for free ship passage.

Instead, the clause commits Iran to "best efforts" for safe passage and dialogue on future administration "in line with applicable international law."

It does not explicitly authorise enforcement actions like boarding, forcing turns, or strikes against vessels using the southern/Omani route.

Such actions risk violating freedom of navigation principles.

Iran’s IRGC has acted on its interpretation by designating routes and targeting non-compliant ships.

This has been contested as exceeding the MOU and international norms.

The dispute underscores the MOU’s fragility as a short-term framework rather than a comprehensive resolution.

As of Wednesday (July 1, 2026), temporary pauses and indirect talks were reported, but traffic remains below normal levels amid ongoing risks to global energy flows.