Expert: The war is a renegotiation of the strait

Georgina Harris/TT

 

Published 18:28

           

        These military images were released by the US military command Centcom on July 12. American              unmanned drone ships approach the Iranian naval base in Bandar Abbas, Iran. Photo: AP/TT

The conflict between the US and Iran has escalated in a short time with intensified attacks.

– It is not an unbridled war. Both sides continue to signal that there are limitations and that they want to return to an agreement, says Middle East expert Aron Lund at FOI.

A collapsed ceasefire and resumed attacks are the latest developments in the conflict between the US and Iran. However, the likelihood of a full-scale major war flaring up is less than the parties want it to appear, according to Aron Lund at the Swedish Defence Research Institute (FOI).

– Both sides assume that the other is lying and are led by figures with very contrived rhetoric. But it is rare that you want to fight to the bitter end.

The Strait of Hormuz is a key issue

The memorandum of understanding that was signed between the US and Iran in mid-June is comprehensive and vague. Aron Lund believes that the issue of the Strait of Hormuz has been the major watershed.

– There were different interpretations of what had been agreed. Iran has read the agreement as meaning that the strait will be opened, but under Iranian control. The US believes that it has the right to open its own route.

Iran has been singled out for being behind three ship attacks in the Persian Gulf in early July. US President Trump rejected the ceasefire and the airstrikes resumed.

– The Iranian position is fundamentally illegal. You cannot fire on civilian shipping. That said, it is surprising that the US, Arab countries and even European leaders seem to have been taken aback by the Iranian stance on Hormuz.

Limited war back

The seemingly chaotic nature of the war makes it difficult to predict the next steps, or possible solutions. But both sides are calculating, according to Lund.

– Both sides see an agreement in the future. But the other side must be weakened – and convinced to come forward.

Until one side is thrown off balance in the power struggle, threats are used as a means of pressure.

For the US, it is mainly about expanded air campaigns and Israel's possible involvement. For Iran, it is about the price of oil and attacks in the region, supported by the militias the Houthi movement and Hezbollah.

– It may take time, it may go wrong. But in practice, a renegotiation of the terms that were agreed the first time is underway, says Aron Lund.

The Declaration of Intent

In early June, the US and Iran agreed on a ceasefire and a 60-day deadline during which they will negotiate a peace solution. The declaration of intent consists of 14 points.

In a first stage, both countries and their allies will cease all hostilities. Lebanon's "territorial integrity and sovereignty will be ensured".

The US will begin to lift its naval blockade of Iran and ensure that Iranian crude oil exports can resume. Frozen Iranian assets will begin to be made available.

Iran will ensure that trade traffic through the Strait of Hormuz can resume for 60 days, including by clearing mines. The country reiterates a promise never to acquire nuclear weapons.

In the event of a peace agreement, the US will lift all sanctions against Iran and move all military forces from Iran's vicinity. The US, together with partners in the region, will develop a plan in which Iran will receive the equivalent of over 2,800 billion kronor for “reconstruction and economic development” in the event of an agreement.

The 60-day deadline can be extended. A final agreement must be approved by the UN Security Council.