A non-binding Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) lacks the legal teeth required to guarantee consistent maritime passage. Since an MoU functions as a statement of intent rather than a hard treaty, any signatory can walk away without formal legal repercussions. For Iran, this creates a persistent layer of volatility. While the agreement might temporarily lower insurance premiums for tankers carrying grain or pharmaceutical precursors, those benefits remain fragile.
Supply chain managers look for certainty, not mere promises. Because the MoU is not legally enforceable, sudden geopolitical shifts can instantly nullify the agreement. This uncertainty forces humanitarian agencies and private importers to bake high risk premiums into their costs. Consequently, the price of essential goods like insulin or wheat likely stays high. When maritime transit becomes a political bargaining chip rather than a settled legal reality, the reliability of the 'last mile' delivery suffers. Even if the MoU facilitates smoother customs procedures or better communication between naval forces, the underlying threat of sudden closure remains. Reliable logistics depend on predictable rules. Without a binding framework, the flow of life-saving supplies depends entirely on the current political mood, which is rarely steady.
