A key provision in President Donald Trump's memorandum of understanding with Iran meant to reopen the Strait of Hormuz has instead become the focus of a dangerous dispute over control of the strategic waterway, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis published Thursday.

The disagreement centers on Paragraph 5 of the agreement, which assigns Iran responsibility for restoring commercial shipping through the strait while calling for future talks with Oman over its administration.

U.S. officials viewed the language as requiring Iran to reopen the passage, while Tehran has interpreted it as recognition of Iran's authority over the waterway.

A U.S. official familiar with the negotiations told the outlet the two sides are on "different planets" over the clause's meaning.

Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf reinforced Tehran's interpretation, writing on X, "The Strait of Hormuz will only open with 'Iranian arrangements,' not American threats."

The agreement states: "Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of 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."

The MOU continues: "The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles, and demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be instated within 30 days."

The Journal noted that continued attacks on shipping appear inconsistent with the agreement's requirement to remove military obstacles and that the 30-day timeline is already three weeks in, with traffic still disrupted.

Commercial traffic remains well below prewar levels, with ship-tracking firm Kpler recording just 25 crossings Wednesday, down from 49 the previous day and more than 100 daily before the conflict.

Israeli geopolitical analyst Michael Horowitz said the dispute reflects deeper strategic differences.

"This gap in interpretation is wide, baked into the deal, and not exactly surprising," Horowitz said.

"Washington has tried to convince Tehran that compliance would be more profitable, but this framing misses the point. Iran's behavior isn't driven by financial motives but by security concerns and bargaining leverage. It's a power dynamic."

The Wall Street Journal noted that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has pushed Tehran toward a more expansive interpretation of the agreement, including future tolls and permit requirements for ships transiting the strait through a newly established Persian Gulf Strait Authority.

Meanwhile, the U.S. and Gulf Arab allies have backed an alternative shipping corridor closer to Omani waters.

According to the Journal, the U.S. Navy has quietly helped commercial vessels navigate that southern route, allowing Persian Gulf crude exports to recover to about 9.5 million barrels a day earlier this week.

The competing approaches have fueled renewed violence. Jordan said Thursday it intercepted Iranian missiles after Tehran launched attacks on Kuwait and Bahrain overnight in retaliation for U.S. strikes.

"Iran saw the deal as a recognition it was in control. Now countries in the region are paying the price," Emirati political strategist Amjad Taha said.

"It's a disaster, and we are back to square one."

Iranian conservative commentator Ehsan Hosseini criticized the U.S.-backed shipping effort, saying, "The U.S. is using the negotiation to have breathing space to eliminate Iran's governance of the strait. We may lose the Strait of Hormuz, which is the most important tool of pressure."

Analysts told the Journal the dispute raises concerns about future negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.

"Had there been a basic level of trust between the parties or an agreed mechanism for resolving disputes, these interpretive gaps could have been managed," said Raz Zimmt of Israel's Institute for National Security Studies.

Eric Brewer, a former senior U.S. intelligence community Iran analyst, said the agreement failed to resolve its central disputes.

"The flaw of the MOU was not so much that it avoided the nuclear issue, but that it apparently papered over major differences between the U.S. and Iran on the key issues the agreement was intended to solve, the ceasefire, the status of the Strait, and sanctions relief," Brewer said.

"Either the U.S. didn't know about those differences or chose to ignore them."

James Morley III ✉

James Morley III is a writer with more than two decades of experience in entertainment, travel, technology, and science and nature.