IRGC Launches Nightly Drone Attacks on Hormuz Ships Despite U.S.-Iran Truce

U.S. Military Response

CENTCOM forces have intercepted and destroyed every drone before it could strike a commercial or U.S. military vessel . The U.S. military is actively coordinating with shipping companies on safe-passage procedures, advising when to disable AIS transponders and how to respond to Iranian threats . An official described traffic flow through the strait as "unimpeded" despite the nightly drone salvos .

The Status of Shipping: A Diplomatic Reopening, But a Physical Standstill

The situation on the water is deeply contradictory:

• Diplomatic moves: The MOU is explicitly intended to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to all traffic . On June 17, the U.S.-led Joint Maritime Information Center (JMIC) officially downgraded the threat level for vessels in the strait from "severe" to "substantial" following the deal .
• Physical reality: Commercial traffic remains at a fraction of pre-war levels. As of June 8, roughly 10 vessels per day were crossing, compared with a typical 95—about 11% of normal volume—with the strait having been effectively closed for more than 100 days since the war began on February 28 .
• Industry caution: Tanker CEOs have expressed optimism that shipping could ramp up quickly if security stabilizes, but data from ship-tracking services shows no traffic increase three days after the deal was announced, as shipping firms and insurers adopt a wait-and-see approach .

What the MOU Actually Says

Drafts of the MOU obtained by multiple outlets reveal a 14-point interim framework—not a final peace agreement . President Trump, Vice President Vance, and Iran's lead negotiator and Speaker of Parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf signed the document digitally . Key provisions include:

• A 60-day cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon
• Iran's commitment to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and eliminate barriers such as mines, restoring traffic to pre-war levels within 30 days
• U.S. commitment to lift its naval blockade on Iranian ports
• Toll-free passage through the strait for 60 days, though future fees are not precluded
• A new minimum standard for downblending Iran's highly enriched uranium
• Provisions to ensure Lebanon's territorial integrity
• The U.S. will move to waive, but not permanently remove, certain sanctions once the deal is signed
• Iran receives access to billions of dollars in frozen assets and sanctions relief on oil and petrochemical sales, conditioned on compliance
• A pathway to 60 days of follow-on nuclear negotiations

The formal ceremony is set for June 19 in Geneva, hosted by Pakistan, which acted as a mediator . Vice President Vance and Speaker Ghalibaf are expected to sign in person, after which Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says direct nuclear talks will begin .

Why Is the IRGC Still Attacking?

As of the latest reporting, neither the U.S. nor the Iranian government has provided an official explanation. Analysts and media reports have coalesced around two competing theories :

• Deliberate defiance: Hardline elements within the IRGC may be actively trying to sabotage the diplomatic track before Geneva, signaling they will not accept a deal negotiated by Iran's civilian government. The IRGC has a well-documented history of operating as a state-within-a-state, and on June 14—one day before the digital signing—the IRGC broadcast maritime radio warnings ordering all vessels to "absolutely refrain from any movement in the Strait of Hormuz until further notice" .
• Command-and-control breakdown: The IRGC's decentralized field units may not have received timely orders to stand down, or internal command structures may be disrupted. Both the IRGC naval commander who originally ordered the strait's closure and his replacement are reported to have been killed in Israeli and U.S. strikes, leaving regional operations without confirmed top commanders .

No named official has confirmed either hypothesis. The ambiguity is itself a significant risk factor. If the drone attacks continue after the Geneva signing ceremony, it would strongly support the theory of deliberate IRGC defiance and cast doubt on whether Iran's political leadership can fully enforce the agreement's terms.