Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused the United States on July 25, 2026 of trying to force open a new shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz without Iran's permission — a move he says violates a bilateral agreement and deepens a conflict already marked by nearly two weeks of nightly US strikes on Iranian territory.

Araghchi's remarks, published in Iranian media and reported by Al Jazeera, point to a US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding signed in June 2026. A Memorandum of Understanding, or MoU, is a formal but non-binding agreement between two parties. Araghchi says this particular MoU grants Tehran the right to decide transit routes and procedures for the strait. He argued that Washington should have consulted Tehran before establishing new routes and noted that both sides had agreed to open a direct line of communication to resolve such disputes.

The accusation lands at a potential turning point in the military campaign. Al Jazeera correspondent Resul Serdar, reporting from Tehran, confirmed that there were no direct US attacks on major Iranian cities overnight into Saturday, July 25 — a break from nearly two straight weeks of nightly strikes that began on July 8. Iran's health ministry spokesperson Hossein Kermanpour posted on X that "Iran had a peaceful night." The pause fits what former Austrian Defence Attache Wolfgang Pusztai described as a US "hot and cold approach" — bombing one night, holding off the next — aimed at encouraging Iran to seek an end to the war.

Diplomatic Channels Open, but Progress Is Thin

US President Donald Trump said on the night of July 24 that Iranian officials are talking to the US and "they'd love to make a deal," adding, "I'm willing to listen." Iranian officials confirmed to Al Jazeera that the two countries are exchanging messages, with proposals delivered by mediators. But Tehran is still reviewing those proposals, and Serdar reported that there is "not much progress yet" due to "fundamental differences" and deep "mistrust" between the two sides.

The diplomatic track has been volatile since late June. The US and Iran agreed on June 27 to halt hostilities in the Gulf and renew talks over the Hormuz dispute, following a 60-day sanctions waiver Washington granted on June 22 after initial negotiations under a nascent peace deal. Sanctions are punitive economic measures — in this case, restrictions on Iran's ability to sell oil internationally. That fragile arrangement collapsed within weeks. The US reinstated oil sanctions on July 7 citing shipping attacks in the strait, launched new strikes the same day, and escalated again on July 8, when Tehran responded by hitting Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar. On July 11, Iran agreed to continue talks while simultaneously declaring the ceasefire over.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in remarks published July 20, stated that Iran was supposed to issue a statement about opening the strait and ceasing attacks roughly a week earlier. By July 22, Rubio framed the US position bluntly: Iran opposes tolling or any restriction on freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. That same day, CENTCOM — the US military's Central Command, responsible for operations in the Middle East — stated that the strait "remains open."

The Blockade and the Legal Dispute

The US re-imposed a naval blockade of the strait on July 14. Since then, the US military has redirected 12 vessels and disabled another, according to a claim made on July 23. US Central Command spokesman Tim Hawkins told Al Jazeera on July 24 that the US had "disabled" a tanker that repeatedly tried to breach the blockade and ignored warnings. Iran's foreign ministry, through its Ireland embassy website, described disruptions in the strait as a direct result of US-Israeli aggression and called for international condemnation.

The dispute over transit rights has now moved into Iran's legislature. On July 25, Iran's parliament referred 12 bills aimed at tightening control over the Strait of Hormuz, a legislative response that signals Tehran wants to lock its jurisdictional claims into law rather than treat them as a passing bargaining chip. Araghchi's reliance on the June MoU as the legal basis for Iran's authority over transit routes suggests Iran views the agreement not merely as a de-escalation framework but as a tool that cements its sovereign prerogatives over one of the world's most critical maritime chokepoints.

A Conflict With Multiple Fronts

Iran's foreign ministry has been active on several diplomatic fronts. In a statement dated July 8, it criticized the European troika — the three European powers (France, Germany, and the UK) that have historically led negotiations with Iran on nuclear and security issues — for framing their actions as an effort to advance diplomacy, and indicated Iran would cease further cooperation. Through its Vienna UN mission, it reported on July 16 that civilian locations had been targeted by American and Israeli attacks, with many more struck during the preceding five days. The ministry also claimed on July 8 that 13 children were killed in airstrikes, referencing American vessels in the strait.

The broader context here is a conflict that has cycled through escalation and negotiation repeatedly in a single month. Each temporary halt in strikes has been followed by a renewed breakdown, and each round of talks has surfaced the same structural tension: Washington insists on unrestricted freedom of navigation through Hormuz, while Tehran asserts that the June MoU gives it authority over transit routes. The direct communication line both sides agreed to establish has not yet bridged that gap. Whether the current pause in strikes holds may depend less on the proposals now under review in Tehran than on whether either side is willing to recalibrate its interpretation of what the MoU actually requires.