WANA (Jun 20) – Recent remarks by Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei regarding the Strait of Hormuz have sparked reactions. Baghaei dismissed reports by some media outlets claiming that the strait had been closed, stating that, in accordance with the June 18, 2026 memorandum of understanding ending the war, the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran have taken the necessary measures to ensure the safe passage of commercial vessels and that shipping traffic through the waterway is continuing.

 

These remarks come despite the fact that, according to critics, the same spokesperson had previously stressed in a televised interview that Article 13 of the memorandum links the implementation of Articles 1, 4, 5, 10, and 11, and that no further measures should be taken unless those provisions are carried out.

 

Critics have also pointed to statements by Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi, who had said that Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon constituted part of the memorandum. However, not only has the withdrawal not taken place, but the Israeli military has officially stated that it has made no changes to its directives or operations.

 

The Israeli military has also denied the existence of a ceasefire, saying it continues to act in accordance with the instructions of political leaders. Meanwhile, reports indicate that Israeli attacks are continuing, and officials from the country have declared that they do not intend to halt their operations.

 

Citing these developments, critics argue that the first article of the memorandum has been clearly violated. In their view, when one of the agreement’s most significant commitments has not been implemented and the other side has openly declared its non-compliance, Iran’s continued implementation of the memorandum’s remaining provisions raises serious questions.

 

Against this backdrop, some media outlets and political groups have asked why Iran is still honoring its commitment to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and allow commercial shipping to pass despite the alleged breach of the agreement. They argue that implementing the deal unilaterally will only embolden the other side to continue its actions.

 

Given the continuation of Israeli attacks and the absence of a withdrawal from Lebanon, critics contend that the memorandum was effectively violated from the outset. They ask, “Shouldn’t Iran respond forcefully from the very beginning?” and have called on Tehran to stop implementing the memorandum and close the Strait of Hormuz.

 

At the center of these criticisms is what opponents describe as the “one-sided implementation” of the memorandum—an approach they believe is inconsistent with earlier statements by Iranian officials emphasizing the need for simultaneous and reciprocal implementation of commitments and one that, in their view, requires an explanation from the country’s diplomatic establi shment.