Italian Analyst Discusses Iran's Strategic Leverage in Hormuz

Tehran, Iran Jul 13, 2026 ALN: TEHRAN – In an exclusive interview with the Tehran Times, Silvia Boltuc, an Italian geopolitical analyst and Managing Director of Special Eurasia, examines the collapse of the US-Iran memorandum after Washington's July strikes. The geopolitical landscape surrounding Iran is complex and fraught with tension, particularly regarding the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway for global oil transport. Boltuc argues that the rupture of the memorandum reflects coercive bargaining rather than a scripted plot. She traces how the ambiguity over Hormuz, shifting rhetoric on Iran's enriched uranium, NATO's fractured Ankara summit, and the exposure of (Persian) Gulf states have shaped the crisis. Boltuc also explains why the Strait of Hormuz remains Iran's most valuable, double-edged card.

Understanding the Collapse of the Memorandum

Trump declared the ceasefire “over” just hours after US strikes hit Iranian territory. Does this sequence suggest Washington was looking for a pretext to abandon the memorandum of understanding?

The open-source record does not allow for establishing the intent with certainty, but it does reveal a pattern of behavior that suggests a pretextual approach. The precipitating incident, which involved Iranian strikes on tankers, occurred at the single most legally ambiguous point in the memorandum of understanding (MoU). The document required the reopening of Hormuz but did not explicitly resolve who controls passage through the Strait, leaving both sides free to claim the other broke the deal first. An agreement with a known, unresolved trigger point is structurally fragile, making it easy for a party looking for an off-ramp to find a crisis built into the text.

Trump’s language, which included phrases such as “waste of time,” “garbage,” “sick people,” and “I don’t want to deal with them anymore,” suggests a mindset that is not of someone reluctantly forced to abandon the deal, but rather as someone who wants to assert US power and compel Tehran to understand that negotiating is preferable to military escalation. A US official indicated that Trump's decision was influenced by personal irritation that Iran attacked ships while he was attending a NATO summit, suggesting that status and optics grievances played a role, rather than purely security calculations. This aligns with Trump's character and leadership style, which often emphasizes image and perception.

Further complicating the situation, it was noted that Trump was losing patience with the pace of negotiations, particularly regarding Tehran's perceived slow-walking on nuclear talks. This frustration seems to have predated the tanker incident, indicating that the breakdown of the MoU was not merely a reaction to specific events but rather a culmination of ongoing tensions and dissatisfaction.

Tehran's own negotiators framed the strikes as an enforcement of its claimed jurisdiction over the Strait, which can be seen as a deliberate pressure tactic rather than a passive trigger. This illustrates the complex interplay of actions and reactions that characterize US-Iran relations.

The Nuclear Question and US Intentions

Washington insists Iran can never have a nuclear weapon, but Trump has now stated the US isn’t pressing to collect Iran’s enriched uranium as the June agreement specified. What does abandoning this provision suggest about how seriously Washington ever intended to honor the deal?

The June 17–18 memorandum of understanding (Article 8) did not actually specify that Washington would collect Iran’s enriched uranium. Instead, the clause commits both sides to resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material through a mutually agreed mechanism, with the minimum methodology being on-site down-blending under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision. This means that the baseline established by both governments was the dilution of the material within Iran, rather than its confiscation or removal to US custody. This represents a significant shift from Washington’s earlier demand that Iran hand over its stockpile.

On the same day the MoU was finalized, Trump downplayed the urgency of retrieving the uranium, stating that it was something the US wanted “psychologically” but not immediately. He suggested that it might not even be worth the effort, indicating that the bombing campaign, referred to as Midnight Hammer, had effectively buried the issue. This leads to the conclusion that the nuclear rationale was always more flexible than the war rhetoric implied.

Trump's statements illustrate this inconsistency, as he shifted from a firm stance of “we will get the uranium, deal or no deal” to a more relaxed attitude of “it’s not valuable, why bother” within a short span of time. This shift occurred without any new technical findings to justify the change, further complicating the narrative surrounding US intentions.

Israel's Role and NATO's Position

Do you see Israel as a driving force behind Washington’s decision to abandon the memorandum of understanding, given the pattern of escalation on multiple fronts simultaneously?

There are two parallel tracks to consider: one is the Lebanon front, where Israeli obstruction has been well-documented and frequently attributed to their influence, including by US officials. The other is the specific episode that occurred in the Strait of Hormuz from July 7 to July 10. While the evidence regarding this particular incident is materially weaker, the absence of definitive proof does not automatically rule out Israeli involvement.

Moreover, the precipitating event, which was Iran’s attacks on tankers in the Strait, was fundamentally about Iran’s claim of jurisdiction over the Strait—a dispute directly between Washington and Tehran. No Israeli fingerprint has been reported by any open source, suggesting that the conflict is primarily a bilateral issue rather than one involving a third party.

NATO's Involvement and Future Implications

NATO’s summit declaration backed Washington’s position and called the US strikes “necessary.” What does NATO involvement in this rhetoric signal about the alliance’s willingness to be drawn into a Middle East confrontation beyond its traditional mandate?

It is important to clarify that the formal Ankara Summit Declaration does not explicitly call the US strikes necessary. The entire content related to Iran consists of a single sentence: allies reiterate that Iran must never possess a nuclear weapon and call on Iran to fully respect freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. Notably, there is no reference to the strikes, no endorsement of military action, and no departure from NATO’s long-standing non-proliferation position on Iran.

Thus, NATO, as a treaty organization, is not being drawn into a Middle East confrontation. There is no basis under Article 5 of the NATO treaty for such involvement, as Iran has not attacked NATO territory. The consensus text from the summit did not alter NATO’s existing Iran policy, indicating that the alliance is cautious about becoming embroiled in conflicts that do not directly threaten its member states.

This careful positioning by NATO highlights the complexities of international relations in the region and underscores the challenges that lie ahead. The dynamics between Iran, the US, Israel, and NATO are evolving, and the implications of these developments will likely resonate in global geopolitics for years to come. The Strait of Hormuz, as a critical chokepoint, will continue to be a focal point of contention and negotiation, reflecting the broader struggles for power and influence in the Middle East.