Article 5 explained: The US-Iran MoU clause which caused latest flare-up in Hormuz

The United States and Iran will meet in Doha after pausing fresh strikes over attacks in the Strait of Hormuz. Their truce now hinges on rival readings of Article 5 and control of commercial shipping.

In Short

• Article 5 of MoU on Strait of Hormuz navigation is main dispute
• Iran claims control over strait during transition, US demands free navigation
• Recent attacks on commercial ships escalated tensions and military responses

Days after the United States and Iran agreed to halt military strikes and return to the negotiating table, a clause in their fragile memorandum of understanding (MoU) has emerged as the biggest obstacle to preserving the truce.

The two countries are expected to meet in Doha on Tuesday after reportedly agreeing to suspend all "kinetic activity" following a weekend of tit-for-tat attacks that pushed their 11-day-old peace agreement to the brink. While the latest understanding has eased immediate fears of a wider conflict, the core dispute remains unresolved -- who controls Strait of Hormuz and what exactly Article 5 of the MoU requires each side to do.

Instead of building confidence after the ceasefire, Washington and Tehran accused each other of breaking the agreement, particularly over how commercial ships should move through the strait.

HOW ARTICLE 5 BECAME THE FLASHPOINT

Article 5 of the memorandum focuses on restoring commercial navigation through the strait after months of disruption caused by the US-Israel war against Iran.

The clause requires Iran to facilitate the safe passage of commercial vessels while removing military and technical obstacles that prevent normal shipping.

"Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa," Article 5 states.

The agreement also requires Tehran to remove military obstacles, carry out demining operations within 30 days and work with Oman and other Gulf states to define the future administration of the Strait of Hormuz in line with international law and the rights of coastal states.

While both sides agreed on reopening the waterway, they appear to have reached different conclusions over how shipping should be managed during the transition period.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's most critical maritime chokepoints.

Before the conflict erupted on February 28, around one-fifth of global oil supplies passed through the narrow waterway connecting Persian Gulf with Gulf of Oman and Arabian Sea.

After the US and Israel launched military operations against Iran, Tehran imposed a blockade of the strait, leaving hundreds of commercial vessels stranded and sending global energy markets into turmoil. In repose, US did the same.

Although the interim agreement called for commercial traffic to resume, Iran says navigation through the strait remains under its authority. Speaking during a visit to Baghdad on Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the agreement clearly recognised Tehran's role.

"The Strait of Hormuz remains under the total oversight and management of Iran through the 30 coming days, and after all obstacles are removed, the total capacity of the waterway will be restored. This is what we are working on," he said.

"This responsibility rests on the Islamic Republic of Iran. There is no other party or state in this respect. This is totally clear under the memorandum of understanding, and any intervention or any unilateral action will result in exacerbating the situation and also delay the reopening of the strait," he added.

HOW THE LATEST ESCALATION UNFOLDED

The latest crisis began after attacks on commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

The Singapore-flagged Ever Lovely was struck by a drone on Friday, while the Panama-flagged Kiku was hit a day later. Iran did not claim responsibility for either incident.

The United States responded with strikes on Iranian missile and drone facilities, coastal radar positions and other military infrastructure.

US Central Command said the attacks were carried out "in direct response to continued Iranian aggression against commercial shipping."

President Donald Trump also defended the military action, saying Iran had violated the ceasefire agreement.

"There may come a point when we are no longer able to be reasonable, and will be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started," Trump wrote on Truth Social.

"If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist."

Iran rejected the accusations and said the US strikes were a breach of both international law and the memorandum itself.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) later launched retaliatory missiles and drones targeting US military facilities in Kuwait and Bahrain.

DIFFERENT READINGS OF THE SAME AGREEMENT

The latest confrontation has clearly flagged the different interpretations of Article 5.

Washington says the agreement guarantees unrestricted commercial navigation and has backed alternative shipping arrangements involving Oman and international maritime authorities.

Iran, however, agrees that shipping should resume, but all vessels must continue coordinating with Tehran because the strait is under Iranian administration during the implementation period.

The dispute deepened last week after the IRGC instructed vessels to use only the northern shipping corridor inside Iranian territorial waters.

According to maritime monitoring firm Windward AI, four tankers using the southern route through Omani waters were forced to turn back, while several others altered course before completing their transit.

Shipping through the strait subsequently declined, with daily transits falling from 70 vessels on Wednesday to just 40 by Saturday.

DOHA TALKS OFFER A NEW OPENING

Despite the latest violence, Washington and Tehran have agreed to pause military operations and resume negotiations in Doha.

According to Axios, senior US officials said both sides had agreed to suspend all "kinetic activity" ahead of Tuesday's meeting.

"We decided to stop all the kinetic activity," one senior US official said.

Another official said both countries would stand down "for now" and that "vessels can move freely" while technical negotiations continue.

The talks were originally planned in Switzerland as part of wider discussions on Iran's nuclear programme. However, after the latest military escalation, diplomats shifted the venue to Qatar and narrowed the immediate focus to resolving disagreements over the Strait of Hormuz.

The outcome of those negotiations could determine whether Article 5 becomes the foundation of a lasting peace or the clause that unravels the entire US-Iran agreement.

- Ends