Tehran has found support for its interpretation of a ceasefire memorandum of understanding, drafted hastily in June 2026, which it believes grants it significant influence over the management of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime corridor. The deal's vague language, particularly point five of the 14-point plan stating, "The Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels," has been interpreted differently by involved parties.

An Arab oil executive described the clauses as so ambiguous that "you can drive a truck through those clauses." Iran sees this point as a green light to assert authority over the strait's administration. However, the Sultanate of Oman has objected to Iran's inclusion of a clause requiring dialogue with Oman to define future administration and maritime services, calling it unacceptable and a dangerous precedent.

Former British diplomat Simon Gass, who participated in the 2015 nuclear deal negotiations, suggested a potential compromise might involve no tolls for ships passing through the strait but allow Iran to charge shipping fees to demonstrate its authority.

Meanwhile, Robert Malley of the International Crisis Group, part of the US delegation for the 2015 nuclear deal, noted internal divisions within Iran's leadership. He said, "Some want to cash in on battlefield gains through diplomacy and some believe the ceasefire came too soon before Iran had inflicted enough pain on the US." Malley expressed cautious optimism about the truce's prospects, stating, "I give the truce a fair chance of recovering in some form because neither side can completely get its way as they will find out soon enough," but warned that due to dysfunctions on both sides, the outcome remains uncertain.

The dispute over control and administration of the Strait of Hormuz underscores the fragility of the ceasefire deal and highlights ongoing tensions between the US, Iran, and regional actors.

Sources