Good points.
I disagree though that Iran broke the MoU. The timeline of events is evident in itself.
Your first point is based on an assumption that Israel was destined to break the terms and that Iran should have predicted this. The MoU was arbitrated by Pakistan et al in good faith. Why should Iran have assumed it would be immediately and recklessly contravened by Israel? Yes, they should have been prepared for that eventuality, which they likely were, but when an agreement is signed and brokered, it is entirely reasonable to assume that the parties will be beholden to it.
The MOU was signed between the US and Iran. The US did not break its part. Did Iran expect Israel to raise its hands as soon as it was signed? Did it not see the increasing friction between the US and Israel on it, the first time ever? Instead, it attacked those vessels and flung the US exactly where Israel wanted it. Foolishly threw the baby out with the bathwater. How did that serve Iran? I keep repeating this to emphasize that your premise is faulty. The question is not what Iran is justified to do but what will serve it best?
Regarding Omani waters, I never said that I believe that Iran should control them or seek control of them. I said that events in the SoH are not bound by an already broken treaty,
Not what I argued against, either. Morality, or even any treaty, holds no sway on the matter.
Iran knew exactly what the US response would be. Yet, it went ahead with it. To What End? The day that Iran has the means to pull this off, it can go back and do whatever it wants. Premature attempts will only delay it from achieving those means and make its people suffer needlessly.
so belligerent powers will have to work in their own interests from that point onwards.
Within their means while not jeopardizing what has already been achieved.
The very question itself requires inversion. What did Oman think would happen if they took Iranian business away from them almost literally from under their noses and handed that business to all and sundry?
Who would you have picked to oppose, Iran or the US?
If Iran believes it can enforce its interests in SoH, why shouldn't they do just that?
That exact belief is my contention. Iran cannot, to the extent that its hardliners and its posse here wish it could. Their political leadership knows this and was guiding them through it remarkably well until those vessels were hit.
It is essentially a war between cartels out there, fighting for economic supremacy. Siding with one cartel exposes you to the other. You speak of broadly of naivety as though those taking ANY sides in such a mess are somehow any different.
They are, in power. One geriatric manchild can kill dozens of innocent Iranian children with impunity on a vile whim. The naivety is in pretending it's anything different. Taking sides is natural based on personal and national interests. The naivety of personal interests is another matter.
The strong undercurrent is a demand for respect and equality, which is very understandable.
(Except that such things are earned geopolitically, never demanded.)
But naive. Leaves us throwing hissy fits after futile attempts to force it.
