The announcement Friday that the Strait of Hormuz has been reopened has raised big questions: After weeks of airstrikes, missile launches and drone attacks, is the war against Iran close to over? Or is this progress less than meets the eye?
Unfortunately, it may be both. While citizens and markets alike have reason to celebrate Friday’s progress, no one should presume that the fight has permanently ended.
Some important context: It was becoming increasingly clear the standoff in the Persian Gulf was untenable to both sides. Iran’s ability to bottle up tanker traffic in the Strait of Hormuz has been its strongest card, resulting in massive price increases around the world on crude oil, gas, fertilizer and even food. The economic strain on ordinary Americans has been clear in President Donald Trump’s poll numbers and in comments from Republican lawmakers expressing concerns about the war’s potential impact on the midterm elections. Iran’s goal was obvious: create such economic and political turmoil for Trump that he had no alternative but to negotiate a settlement on Tehran’s terms.
But Iran’s strategy was not perfect. In retaliation, the Trump administration responded with a blockade of Iranian ports in the Strait of Hormuz, complicating Tehran’s plans. Iranian-linked tankers that would normally be transiting the waterway were prevented by the U.S. Navy from doing so, which meant lost revenue for Tehran’s war budget and the possibility of reduced oil production should the U.S. embargo persist. Both would have squeezed Iran’s ability to maintain its strategy of keeping closed the Middle East’s most important choke point and harassing energy infrastructure in the Gulf Arab states. And there was always a possibility that the longer the Strait of Hormuz was closed to non-Iranian vessels, the more likely Tehran’s Gulf neighbors were to join the U.S. military campaign in some way.
Friday’s news provides a small reprieve for both Washington and Tehran as they continue to negotiate a comprehensive agreement.
Friday’s news provides a small reprieve for both Washington and Tehran as they continue to negotiate a comprehensive agreement. Such a deal will be trying to accomplish a lot: end the current military conflict, curtail Iran’s nuclear capability, reopen the strait permanently and lift the U.S. sanctions that have throttled the Iranian economy for decades. This tall task could require extending the two-week ceasefire poised to expire Tuesday. Because the Iranians have linked the arrangement in the Strait of Hormuz to the ceasefire in Lebanon, Trump has added incentive to restrain Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from restarting Israel’s war against Hezbollah. Trump seems to have recognized this immediately.
“Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer,” he wrote in a Truth Social post Friday. “They are PROHIBITED from doing so by the U.S.A. Enough is enough!!!”
But there is plenty we still don’t know — and plenty that could go wrong.
First, key details are missing from Iran’s declared reopening of the strait. It’s not yet known how that will work or if it’s truly the major concession Trump has suggested. Iran’s foreign minister has said ships are free to travel along the “coordinated route” established by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Hours later, Iranian military officials reiterated that message. This suggests any vessel not using this route could be in danger of interdiction or other harassment. Even if a ship uses this route, it’s unclear whether its crew must pay a toll to the Iranians to get into the Gulf of Oman. It doesn’t take a genius to envision how Trump might react to Iran imposing tolls.
Second, the Trump administration has said the U.S. blockade against Iran’s ports will remain in place. In other words, tankers and vessels traveling to or from non-Iranian ports can proceed, but those embarking from or to Iranian ports will be turned around. It’s difficult to see why Iran would agree to such an arrangement, which suggests three possibilities: Iran could be more desperate than many of us have thought, officials in Washington and Tehran don’t have similar interpretations of what this understanding entails — or the entire thing is a farce. True to form, the Iranian foreign ministry stressed that a continuation of the U.S. blockade would be met with “the necessary reciprocal measures” in response. The durability of Friday’s developments rest on loose foundations.
Finally, even assuming both parties put forth their best intentions and that the reopening of the strait proceeds without a hitch, there’s still an elephant in the room: the lack of a final deal to end the war. While Vice President JD Vance’s 21-hour negotiating session with Iranian officials in Pakistan last weekend failed to reach a formal agreement, the two sides have continued to transmit proposals to each other through mediators. They may even meet for a second round of direct talks as soon as this weekend. That’s a positive sign. Still, critical issue are under discussion, including the status of Iran’s enrichment capacity; what to do with Iran’s nearly 1,000 pounds of uranium enriched to 60%; and whether Iran will retain the ability to enrich and, if so, what the inspection and monitoring protocols will be. These matters are not just disputed, but they are also highly technical. It will likely take time to hammer them out.
Trump has spent the remainder of the day crowing about Iran’s capitulation on enrichment, the nuclear stockpile buried underneath Tehran’s damaged nuclear facilities and support for proxies in the region. Unless Tehran confirms this, the president’s statements could be treated as hot air or a bid to pressure Iran in upcoming talks.
No one wants to throw a big wet blanket over the embers of progress, but nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
Daniel R. DePetris
Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a syndicated foreign affairs columnist at the Chicago Tribune.