Sameera Casmod | sameerac@radioislam.co.za
22 June 2026 | 13:42
3-minute read

US President Trump and Iranian officials electronically signed the US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on 17 June. The MoU is a 14-point tentative diplomatic roadmap to permanently end the regional war that erupted in late February this year.

Analysts posit that the agreement signals the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, an end to the US blockade of Iranian ports, and a resumption of petrol ship movements for the rest of the world.

Additionally, analysts note that Iran has successfully survived the aerial onslaught and effectively leveraged the Strait of Hormuz to their advantage.

In an interview on Radio Islam International, Political analyst Brooks Spector noted, “They [Iran] found the strategic element that they could use, which was blocking the Strait of Hormuz, which in fact then contributed to the shutdown of oil and natural gas, 20% of the world’s supply in one go, and that was a strategic victory over the US, certainly, and an incitement to the rest of the world to find a way forward and out of the conflict.”

On the other hand, some commentators suggest that this crisis was manufactured as a tool of control to reshape global power structures. They argue that all states are not acting independently but following a hidden coordinated plan.

In this case, then, what the public sees – war reporting, military action, diplomacy – is not the real story. The truth, according to these commentators, is hidden coordination behind governments and media.

Henry Makow, for instance, argues that global geopolitical conflicts are staged to distract the public and consolidate totalitarian world power. Consequently, Makow often frames hostility between Western powers and Iran as a manufactured Hegelian dialectic rather than authentic ideological or geopolitical warfare.

He suggests that prominent Iranian leadership operates in collusion with this international elite, making the conflict a managed event rather than a genuine struggle for sovereignty.

On the surface, it appears that the issue of enriched uranium, which can be used to develop nuclear weapons, is a potential reason for the creation of the managed tension where both the US and Iran are playing assigned roles.

Iran’s enriched uranium program is seen less as a genuine path to nuclear weapons and more as a strategic bargaining tool that keeps the nuclear issue permanently alive. This “permanent crisis” is said to justify sanctions, negotiations, and military positioning, which theorists believe helps maintain long-term geopolitical control.

When it comes to the Strait of Hormuz, critics argue that Iran’s ability to threaten or disrupt oil shipping is also part of the same system. They explain that it functions as a pressure lever that creates global economic uncertainty, allowing energy prices, trade routes, and military deployments to be influenced.

In this view, Iran would “cooperate” in maintaining instability because the ongoing tension itself is what benefits the broader global structure—keeping major powers locked in managed conflict cycles rather than stable independence.

In contrast, in the interview, Spector argues that Iran may have gained strategic advantages despite wartime losses. These include continued influence over uranium enrichment, possible access to frozen funds, and greater leverage in financial and reconstruction discussions.

He also suggests Iran’s role in the Strait of Hormuz has strengthened its global position, as its ability to threaten disruption in a key energy corridor continues to shape markets, inflation, and international negotiations.

Overall, the developments surrounding the US–Iran MoU reflect how the conflict is being interpreted in very different ways. While certain analysis highlights diplomatic progress and shifting power dynamics, other commentators frame the situation as part of a broader system of managed global instability. In this view, both war and diplomacy are seen as tools that shape outcomes in the background of international politics rather than purely independent state actions.

Whether understood as calculated state strategy or as part of wider systemic manipulation, the outcome underscores a central reality of modern geopolitics—control over resources, trade routes, and diplomatic bargaining chips continues to shape the balance of power.