President Donald Trump may call himself the master of making a deal, but four Wall Street Journal writers think he stinks at writing them.
The Journal on Thursday published a stern rebuke of Trump's memorandum of understanding with Iran, arguing a single "poorly worded clause" resulted in the battle for the Strait of Hormuz.
"The root of the dispute is Paragraph 5, which says Iran will make arrangements to restore shipping through the strategic waterway and then work with Oman to determine how to administer it in the future," the report states. "But it also includes an Iranian pledge to ensure safe passage and remove military obstacles such as mines."
The pledge became a problem because it was open to different interpretations by both sides as the war ramps up again, the Wall Street Journal reporters argued.
"Trump administration officials saw that clause as unlocking the strait, the main accomplishment of the president’s deal." they wrote. "Iranian hard-liners, however, have used it to push a maximalist interpretation that gives the Islamic Republic exclusive control over the waterway as a key source of leverage."
Geopolitical analyst Michael Horowitz agreed with their assessment.
"Washington has tried to convince Tehran that compliance would be more profitable, but this framing misses the point," he reportedly said. "Iran's behavior isn't driven by financial motives but by security concerns and bargaining leverage. It's a power dynamic."
Now the U.S. faces tough times ahead in the struggle, according to the analysis
"Tehran has also repeatedly asserted that it will work out arrangements for future management of the strait with its weaker neighbor across the waterway, Oman," the Journal report stated.
"The difficulty coming to terms on opening the Strait of Hormuz points to rough negotiations ahead."