Trump’s “The MOU Is Over”: A Tactical Move or a Statement of Fact?

Is the ceasefire between Washington and Tehran entering its final days – or even its final hours? The question has taken on renewed urgency since Wednesday morning, as tensions between the two capitals have escalated sharply amid a new military standoff over the Strait of Hormuz.

Since the end of the Israeli-American military campaign against its territory, the Islamic Republic has pursued a policy of brinkmanship, pushing its provocation to the limit in an effort to extract as many concessions as possible from President Donald Trump under the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) the two countries signed last June. Tehran appears to be betting that Trump’s preference for a diplomatic resolution to the conlict – driven by economic, financial and U.S. domestic political considerations – in order to push the envelope further without fearing that negotiations, which are expected to resume in the coming weeks, will be called into question.

Is Tehran also testing Trump’s patience? That, too, is a legitimate question. Whatever the answer, the Islamic Republic is playing a dangerous game. Its strategy could ultimately shatter the Memorandum of Understanding and prompt the U.S. president to follow through on his threats of a large-scale – but limited – military operation aimed at forcing the Iranian leadership in accepting his terms.

By sounding the death knell for the June agreement with the terse but unequivocal declaration, “The MOU is over,” on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara, and by calling the leaders of the Islamic Republic every name in the book – the mildest of which were “liars” and “sick people” – President Donald Trump made no secret of his exasperation. Yet he stopped short of announcing measures suggesting a complete break. Instead, he said it would be up to his negotiators to decide whether talks with the Islamic Republic should continue. If they choose to do so, he added, they will have to report back to him.

Still, late Wednesday evening, Trump sought to make clear the extent of his frustration. “I’m not sure I want to make a deal with them [the Iranian leaders],” he said. “We can play games, but I’m not sure I want to make a deal. Let’s just finish the job.” Asked by a reporter what had changed, given that he had praised some senior Iranian officials just last month, President Trump replied: “I got to know them.”

U.S. Strikes Against 80 Targets

Iran has its own calculations. Donald Trump has his own as well. The question is which side will ultimately prevail.

The latests U.S. statements came after another overnight flare-up of violence around the Strait of Hormuz, triggered by Iranian fire earlier on Tuesday against three oil tankers transiting the Omani shipping corridor, which Tehran rejects.

According to Washington, the attacks constitued a blatant violation of the June ceasefire. The U.S. response was immediate: the reinstatement of the ban on the production and sale of Iranian oil and its derivatives. A few hours later, U.S. forces launched strikes against more than 80 military targets in Iran, leaving eight people dead, according to Iranian media. Explosions were reported near the Strait of Hormuz, particularly around Bushehr, not far from Kharg Island, the country’s main oil export terminal.

The Islamic Republic retaliated by striking back, claiming through state media that it had targeted “85 U.S. military facilities located at bases in Kuwait and Bahrain,” as reported by Iranian media. In Kuwait, the Iranian strikes caused widespread power outages.

Threats and Counterthreats

Wednesday was marked by a succession of American threats and Iranian counterthreats, with Tehran – whose bad faith is by now well established – arguing that Washington was the party that violated the ceasefire and that “Donald Trump should bear the consequences himself,” according to Ali Akbar Velayati, an adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei. In a post on his X account, Velayati warned that “the axis of resistance will not stand idly by if American adventurism continues,” a reference to the possible involvement of Iran’s regional proxies.

Tehran also vowed to take “decisive measures” to defend its interests if Washington were to step up the pressure. Iran’s military command warned that “any country facilitating U.S. military operations against Iranian territory would become a legitimate target,” in a thinly veiled threat aimed at Bahrain and Kuwait.

But in this dangerous game, Iran finds itself virtually alone. The United States, Europe, and the Gulf countries all reject what Tehran is attempting to impose by force: exclusive control over the strategic Strait of Hormuz, which would allow it to exert influence over global maritime trade and compensate for the erosion of its regional influence. In Ankara, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz echoed international opposition to Iran’s ambitions. Rutte said the U.S. response was “absolutely necessary,” arguing that a firm stance toward Iran was essential. The German chancellor described it as “fully justified.”

Donald Trump did reiterate his threats against the Islamic Republic throughout Wednesday, but the tone he struck this time was noytably different from his previous statements. The U.S. president appears ready to cross that threshold, as American and Israeli media reported possible Israeli-U.S. coordination in this context.

For Trump, however, the pressure would continue to mount: the restoration of a maritime blockade, control of the strategic island of Kharg, and the resumption of military strikes. He announced late Wednesday afternoon that attacks against Iranian military targets “could resume overnight.”

Later that day, CENTCOM announced on its Telegram channel that “more than 20 U.S. warships are patrolling the waters of the Middle East – with providing further details – to ensure stability and security.” The announcement was a reminder of the U.S. military presence in the region.

NATO, Syria and Lebanon

The NATO summit, during which the U.S. president addressed several issues, was expected to set the record straight on several issues.

Although he was highly critical of NATO and of European countries that he said had failed to support him in his war against Iran, Donald Trump announced that he had no intention of withdrawing from the alliance. He also said he was considering selling F-35 fighter jets, the crown jewels of the U.S. military aviation, to Ankara – a move likely to anger Tel Aviv – and removing Syria from U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Regarding Lebanon, Trump referred to Israel’s stated willingness to withdraw from the areas it still occupies in the southern part of the country, but did not elaborate. He placed the withdrawal within the framework of ongoing negotiations between Tel Aviv and Beirut, which are expected to resume in Rome on July 15 and 16.

According to several media reports, Lebanese authorities have yet to be officially informed by the Washington of those dates and have expressed reservations about the announcement, which was made without prior consultation with them. The dates and location were specified by Italy and Israel.

According to the same sources, Lebanon has made Israel’s withdrawal from two “pilot areas,” as provided for in the framework agreement, a condition for attending the Rome talks.

Another important engagement for Lebanon is President Joseph Aoun’s official visit to Washington on July 21, at the invitation of his U.S. counterpart. The Lebanese Embassy in Washington announced the visit on Wednesday. The invitation is expected to be formally delivered to President Aoun in the coming hours by U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa.

The main focus of the discussions will be the implementation of the framework agreement recently signed between Israel and Lebanon, which notably provides for the gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon and Hezbollah’s disarmament.

In this context, it is worth noting that President Trump was asked about possible Syrian involvement in Hezbollah’s disarmament on the sidelines of the NATO summit. His response was less categorical than his previous positions on the issue. “They could help. We’ll see. I think progress is being made, and I think they could do a good job,” he said.