The U.S.-Iran ceasefire collapsed within weeks, unraveling over ambiguous language about reopening the Strait of Hormuz. New York Times national security correspondent David Sanger explains how hastily negotiated terms and fundamentally different interpretations have pushed both sides back toward open conflict, revealing deep misunderstandings about Iran's nationalist motivations versus Washington's transactional approach. The ceasefire agreement's fifth paragraph used vague language like 'best efforts' for safe passage, allowing Iran to argue it only needed to open one channel through its territorial waters while the U.S. expected full strait reopening.