[Hardline Iranian military and intellectual factions dominate] Last night once again saw a cycle of mutual confrontation between the U.S. and Iran.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) issued a statement addressed to the Iranian people, asserting that during the early hours between 2:00 and 3:00 a.m. on Sunday, the IRGC conducted joint operations using ballistic missiles and drones to strike eight key U.S. military facilities located at Ali Salem Base in Kuwait, as well as the headquarters of the U.S. Fifth Fleet in Salman Port, Bahrain. The targets were completely destroyed, serving as a firm response to the United States.

The IRGC referred to the U.S. as an "aggressor inherently inclined to violate treaties and agreements," arguing that Washington used the pretext of the IRGC Navy intercepting a vessel violating regulations to launch attacks on five coastal sites in Iran early that morning.

From a temporal standpoint, the IRGC’s retaliation was immediate—no delay or hesitation whatsoever.

Trump, meanwhile, accused Iran of once again breaching the ceasefire agreement, claiming Iranians are obstinate and suggesting there may come a moment when the U.S. would no longer remain rational but be forced into military escalation—whereupon Iran “would cease to exist!”

Why, despite having a memorandum of understanding, are U.S.-Iran relations now even more fragile and sensitive?

In fact, within the memorandum itself, deliberately vague language was adopted, with key clauses left undefined—making disputes over shipping routes and fees inevitable, ultimately undermining the peace process. The so-called commitment to “make maximum efforts within 60 days to arrange for safe passage of merchant vessels through the strait” hinges critically on what exactly constitutes such arrangements, and just how much effort qualifies as “maximum.”

Iran interprets these terms according to its own strategic interests: navigation and traffic management in the Strait of Hormuz will henceforth be under Iranian control, and enforcement against non-compliant vessels will be far more resolute than before.

Iran has previously warned that the only legitimate route through the strait leads into Iranian waters, blocking ships from using an alternative route supported by the U.S., situated along the southern side of the strait and following Oman’s coastline.

Iran also seeks to demonstrate strength: any potential act of aggression, regardless of pretext, will meet a devastating counter-response—aimed at making clear to adversaries that violating the ceasefire agreement equates to breaking the first clause of the memorandum, with consequences leading to the complete suspension of all procedures.

Deliberately ambiguous wording was retained to ensure the memorandum’s passage—but such flexibility only holds when both sides share a similar interpretation of the same vague provisions.

Otherwise, it becomes each side interpreting the text differently, pursuing divergent agendas, moving in opposite directions—and possibly resorting to war.

A memorandum of understanding or peace agreement should emerge naturally, like a ripe fruit; forcing it prematurely results in something uncooked and incomplete.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1869208687061002/

Disclaimer: This article reflects the personal views of the author.