Iran has urged the US to return to the ceasefire memorandum, while Vance claims Trump's video of the bombing of Kharg Island was a "message" to Iran.

As military tensions between Iran and the United States escalate again, Tehran has signaled a willingness to restart diplomatic processes.

Iranian Foreign Minister Araqchi posted on his official Telegram channel on Monday, August 31, stating that the United States must reaffirm its commitment to the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between the US and Iran in June, returning to the framework of the agreement signed by US President Trump himself. He added, "Only in this way can we get out of the current situation." He also stated that all countries share a common concern: the war must end as soon as possible.

Iran's latest statement comes amid renewed direct clashes between the US and Iran, a month after the last such exchange. The US previously attacked military targets on Iran's Larak Island, prompting Iran to launch ballistic missiles at US bases in Jordan. Meanwhile, the US military denied Iranian claims that an oil tanker had struck a mine in the Strait of Hormuz, stating that no vessels had struck mines in the strait.

U.S. Vice President Vance sent another signal. He stated on Monday that Trump's earlier posting of a video on social media showing "Halgra Island being bombed to pieces" was "sending a message to Iran," not an announcement that the U.S. had taken military action against the island. U.S. officials confirmed that recent U.S. military operations were not targeted at Halgra Island.

Iranian Foreign Minister says the US must reinstate the memorandum of understanding signed in June to extricate itself from the predicament.

Araghzi's statement essentially demanded that Washington reinstate the memorandum of understanding signed in June.

He stated, "The United States must reaffirm its commitments and adhere to the terms of the memorandum; only then can we get out of this situation." He further stated that the solution is "clear and unambiguous": the United States must reaffirm its commitments and return to "the agreement signed by the President himself." If the United States can do this, "everything can get back on track."

On June 17 this year, with Pakistan's mediation, Trump and Iranian President Pezechiyan signed a 14-point memorandum of understanding. The agreement is based on a ceasefire, sets a 60-day window for subsequent negotiations between the two sides, and covers arrangements such as shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions, Iranian oil exports, and the nuclear issue.

However, the agreement did not last long. Disagreements subsequently arose between the two sides over issues such as navigation control in the Strait of Hormuz, passage of commercial vessels, and responsibilities for fulfilling the agreement. The United States and Iran accused each other of violating the agreement, and military action subsequently resumed. The 60-day period for the memorandum expired on August 17.

Therefore, Araghchi's proposal to "return to the agreement" does not mean that the US and Iran have resumed formal negotiations, but rather it is more like a precondition put forward by Tehran to Washington: the US must first resume fulfilling its obligations before the two sides can possibly return to the diplomatic track.

It is noteworthy that Iran's latest statement was not limited to bilateral relations. Araghchi emphasized that "all countries share a common concern," namely, the need to end the war as soon as possible, attempting to frame the end of the conflict as a shared interest of the region and the international community.

US military base in Jordan attacked: Iran claims heavy damage to targets, US and Jordan say almost all missiles were intercepted.

In the latest round of military clashes, Iran, the United States, and Jordan have significant differences in their accounts of the effects of the attacks.

The United States previously struck two missile launchers on Iran's Larak Island, claiming the targets were preparing to launch mine-laden rockets into the Strait of Hormuz. Iran retaliated by launching ballistic missiles at US bases in Jordan. Reuters reported that this was the first direct exchange of fire between the US and Iran since July.

Jordan and the United States stated that most, if not all, of the missiles launched by Iran were intercepted without causing significant damage. Trump also claimed that U.S. air defense systems shot down all Iranian missiles that could have caused harm.

Iran, however, claimed the attack had a significant effect. Meanwhile, satellite imagery showed new dark areas near Jordan's Muwafak Salti airbase, with possible signs of explosion or damage near fighter jet hangars.

Currently, publicly available information is insufficient to independently confirm the scale of damage claimed by Iran, therefore the actual effect of the attack remains controversial. What is certain is that the month-long period of relative restraint between the US and Iran has been broken, but the two sides are still engaged in an informational battle over the actual results of the military operation.

The U.S. military denied that an oil tanker had struck a mine in the Strait of Hormuz, accusing Iran of using "disinformation" to intimidate shipping.

The Strait of Hormuz remains another key point of contention in the current US-Iran conflict.

The Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps previously claimed that an oil tanker struck two mines while sailing in the southern route of the Strait of Hormuz and subsequently came to a complete stop.

According to CCTV News, on August 31 local time, the U.S. Central Command posted on social media that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's claim that the oil tanker hit a mine and was completely stopped was "untrue".

CCTV reported that the U.S. Central Command stated that no ships have struck mines in the Strait of Hormuz and accused the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of attempting to intimidate regional commercial shipping through "disinformation."

This controversy is directly related to the reasons given by the United States for its previous attack on Larak Island.

The U.S. military stated that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was preparing to launch a mine-laden rocket into the Strait of Hormuz, prompting the U.S. military to take "limited and precise" military action to eliminate what it called an "imminent threat."

Iran, on the other hand, claims that the US military action itself is escalating tensions in the Strait of Hormuz. As both sides accuse each other of laying mines and whether any ships have struck them, the Strait of Hormuz has become not only the forefront of military confrontation but also a crucial battleground for the struggle for narrative dominance.

This dispute is equally significant for the energy market. The Strait of Hormuz typically handles about one-fifth of the world's crude oil and natural gas shipments, and any news of mine laying, shipping disruptions, or escalating military conflict can quickly translate into a risk premium in the energy market.

Vance: Trump is "sending a message," not announcing military action.

Compared to Trump's previous direct threat to "severely strike" Iran, Vance's remarks on Monday are more noteworthy because he attempted to explain what a recent highly impactful social media post by Trump actually meant.

Trump previously posted an AI-generated video showing Kharg Island, Iran's main energy export hub, being heavily bombed, with the caption "Kharg Island is in pieces." However, US officials later confirmed that recent US military operations were not targeting Kharg Island. Iran, on the other hand, dismissed Trump's post as "ridiculous."

Vance said on Monday that Trump "likes to change things up a bit on social media," adding that Trump himself would be the first to admit that he would not announce military action through social media; but this time, "I think he is sending a message to the Iranians."

This statement actually leaves room for ambiguity between diplomacy and military matters in Trump's tough rhetoric: Trump is issuing a threat, but it does not mean that the United States has decided to launch a military strike on Harker Island.

Kharg Island is one of Iran's most important oil export hubs. It was reported that before the war, the island handled approximately 90% of Iran's oil exports. If the United States were to actually attack Kharg Island, it would have a huge impact on Iran's energy trade and economy.

Following Iran's attack on a US military base in Jordan, Trump stated that the US would "strike hard" against Iran and that "there will be a response." However, Vance's explanation of Hargeuk's post suggests that the White House may currently be using multiple means—military action, economic sanctions, and public deterrence—to pressure Tehran simultaneously, rather than each strong statement corresponding to an already implemented military action.

On the same day, U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessant also stated that Iran's military action was due to the impact of a new round of U.S. sanctions on its economy. Reuters reported that Washington has recently increased pressure on Iran and its trading partners through "secondary sanctions," and Bessant had previously indicated that new sanctions could be introduced weekly.

Therefore, the current situation between the US and Iran is quite delicate: Iran demands that the US return to the June ceasefire agreement and resume its obligations as a prerequisite for restarting the diplomatic process; while the US continues to use military deterrence, sanctions, and pressure around the Strait of Hormuz to force Iran to make concessions.

With the latest round of fighting already underway, whether Araghchi's proposal to "return to the agreement" can become a new starting point for negotiations will depend on whether Washington is willing to accept this premise set by Tehran, and whether the two sides can first resolve the two most thorny disputes: shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and the responsibility for fulfilling the agreement.

Risk Warning and DisclaimerInvesting involves risk; please exercise caution. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not take into account the specific investment objectives, financial situation, or needs of individual users. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article are suitable for their specific circumstances. Any investment decisions made based on this information are at your own risk.