Who Is Sabotaging the Iran MoU? Mediators Fear Hardliners Are Turning Hormuz Into a Trap
Axios reports mediators suspect recent Iranian attacks on commercial vessels may have been driven by factions opposed to the U.S.-Iran memorandum. If true, the real battle may be inside Tehran.
The most dangerous question in the Strait of Hormuz may not be whether Iran attacked ships. It may be who inside Iran wanted those attacks to happen.
Axios has reported that mediators believe recent Iranian attacks on commercial vessels may have been orchestrated by elements within the Iranian system opposed to the memorandum of understanding with the United States. If that assessment is accurate, the U.S.-Iran crisis is not simply a bilateral confrontation. It is also an internal Iranian power struggle playing out across one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints.
The reported attacks came after a fragile U.S.-Iran framework aimed at reducing hostilities, reopening shipping lanes and moving negotiations forward. The logic of the MoU was simple: lower the temperature, protect oil flows, and create space for nuclear and sanctions talks. The logic of ship attacks is the opposite: raise insurance costs, test U.S. red lines, embarrass negotiators and force Washington into retaliation.
That is why the sabotage theory matters. A government can sign a deal, but a security apparatus can kill it if enough power centers disagree. Iran’s political system is not a single machine. It includes elected officials, clerical authority, the IRGC, security networks, economic interests and ideological factions. Some may see the MoU as a necessary pause. Others may see it as capitulation.
The U.S. faces a similar problem, though in different form. Trump says he wants a deal, but pressure from Israel, hawks in Washington, Gulf allies and shipping markets pushes him toward force. Every Iranian attack on a vessel gives the U.S. military a justification to strike. Every U.S. strike gives Iranian hardliners proof that America cannot be trusted. The cycle feeds itself.
For mediators like Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, this is the nightmare scenario. Diplomacy depends on both sides controlling their own spoilers. If Tehran cannot control factions near Hormuz, Washington will question whether any Iranian promise matters. If Washington cannot prevent escalation after every provocation, Tehran will argue the MoU is a trap.
The Strait of Hormuz is uniquely vulnerable to this kind of internal sabotage because small actions can have global consequences. A drone strike on one ship, a missile fired near a tanker, a warning broadcast by naval forces, or a disputed boarding attempt can move oil prices, trigger military retaliation and dominate world headlines.
But the sabotage theory should not become an excuse for avoiding accountability. If Iranian state forces attack commercial vessels, Iran bears responsibility internationally, regardless of which faction ordered it. States are judged by what their armed organs do, not only by what their diplomats say.
The headline says hardliners may be sabotaging the MoU. The deeper question is whether any peace deal can survive when the actors most able to wreck it are not fully controlled by the people signing it.
If the U.S. and Iran want the memorandum to live, they need more than signatures. They need command discipline, maritime verification, backchannels during incidents, and a way to punish spoilers without blowing up the entire agreement. Without that, Hormuz becomes less a shipping lane than a detonator.