Will the Strait of Hormuz Reopen?—The "60-Day Gamble" Left by the U.S.-Iran Agreement

The United States and Iran have signed a memorandum aimed at ending hostilities.
This news goes beyond mere bilateral diplomacy. It is an event of significant weight, involving Middle Eastern security, global energy prices, the situation in Israel and Lebanon, and the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

The agreement is referred to as a "memorandum" consisting of 14 items, and it is not a formal final peace treaty. Rather, it is closer to an "entry point" for hammering out permanent arrangements over the next 60 days. Nonetheless, its content is substantial. It includes the extension of the ceasefire, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of the U.S. maritime blockade, discussions on ending sanctions against Iran, handling of frozen assets, a $300 billion reconstruction and economic development fund, and confirmation that Iran will not possess nuclear weapons.

In a nutshell, this agreement can be described as both an "agreement to stop the war" and an "agreement that postpones the causes of war."

The Strait of Hormuz is the main focus

The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz is the aspect of the memorandum that has garnered the most international attention.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's major energy transport routes, connecting the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, and it significantly affects the supply of crude oil and natural gas. If it becomes unstable, it will immediately impact crude oil prices, shipping, insurance premiums, and inflation forecasts in various countries.

The agreement stipulates that Iran will take measures to allow the safe passage of merchant ships. Moreover, the U.S. side emphasizes reopening without imposing transit fees. This is a significant reassurance for the energy market. In fact, reports indicate that crude oil prices fell following the news of the agreement, and the market has welcomed the easing of tensions, at least in the short term.

However, uncertainty remains. Iran has strongly asserted its sovereignty and involvement in the management of the strait. While the U.S. demands "free and unimpeded passage," Iran has no intention of relinquishing "management rights." This difference could become a flashpoint in the negotiations over the next 60 days.

In other words, the Strait of Hormuz may reopen. However, the U.S. and Iran do not fully agree on how it will be reopened.

It's too early to call it "the end of the war"

The first item of the memorandum indicates that the U.S., Iran, and related forces are moving towards ending military operations on "all fronts," including Lebanon. This is significant because tensions between the U.S. and Iran have not been confined to bilateral issues but have also affected Israel, Hezbollah, Gulf countries, Syria, and Iraq.

For Iran, including the situation in Lebanon within the framework of a ceasefire holds great significance. On the other hand, Israel has argued that it needs to continue operations in Lebanon for its national security. If Israel continues to attack Hezbollah, Iran may consider it a violation of the memorandum.

In this regard, the agreement aims to be a "big umbrella" to stop conflicts across the Middle East, but it is unclear how much Israel will be included under that umbrella. This is a challenge for the Trump administration as well. To establish an agreement with Iran, it is necessary to restrain Israel's military actions, but weakening security support for Israel could draw criticism both domestically and internationally.

This agreement has become a paper to end the war. However, it is still unclear whether the realities on the ground will follow it.

The $300 billion fund is not "U.S. payment"

A notable aspect of the memorandum is the $300 billion fund plan for Iran's reconstruction and economic development.

The amount alone is extremely large. For Iran's war-weary economy, it could become a lifeline alongside sanctions relief and the release of frozen assets. The potential target areas are broad, including electricity, ports, oil-related infrastructure, financial systems, housing, healthcare, and transportation networks.

However, it is stated that the U.S. is not obligated to directly contribute funds to this fund. The U.S. side emphasizes that American taxpayers are not handing over money to Iran. The expected structure involves the involvement of Gulf countries, regional investors, and international development funds, with the U.S. facilitating the flow of funds through sanctions permits or exemptions.

This structure also serves as a defensive line in domestic politics. For Trump, being perceived as having "conceded" to Iran poses a significant risk. Especially from the standpoint of having criticized the Iran nuclear deal under the Obama administration, it is crucial to avoid the perception that "the U.S. paid Iran."

Therefore, while this fund is economic support, the U.S. side explains it as "not a payment." The Iranian side speaks domestically of "victory" and having "extracted necessary concessions," while the U.S. side describes it as a mechanism to change behavior conditionally. Here lies the structure in which both countries promote the same agreement in completely different political languages.

The nuclear issue shifts from "resolution" to "management"

The most significant issue in this agreement is, of course, the nuclear issue.

The memorandum includes the principle that Iran will not acquire or purchase nuclear weapons. Regarding the enriched uranium it already possesses, the handling will be decided in future negotiations, with measures to lower its concentration under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency being anticipated.

This is described as a major achievement for the U.S. Trump argues that preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons was the primary objective. If the agreement is implemented, it will have the effect of reducing the risk of Iran's nuclear weaponization to some extent.

However, the issue lies in the "to some extent" part. This memorandum does not completely dismantle Iran's nuclear development capabilities. Many core aspects, such as the method of processing enriched uranium, the scope of inspections, the reinstatement of sanctions in case of violations, and the relationship with missile development, are left to future negotiations.

In other words, the nuclear issue has not been resolved. It is more accurate to say that the crisis has been pushed back into a manageable framework through the agreement.

This difference is significant. If the 60-day negotiations fail, the U.S. may once again consider military pressure as an option, and Iran will continue to use the nuclear card as a bargaining chip.

Sanctions relief is the greatest reward

For Iran, the greatest achievement is the path to sanctions relief being indicated.

Years of sanctions have severely impacted Iran's economy. Energy exports, financial transactions, foreign currency procurement, infrastructure investment, import prices, and all aspects of national life have been affected. The release of frozen assets and the resumption of oil exports will be important not only for government finances but also for suppressing domestic discontent.

On the other hand, the U.S. side wants to make sanctions relief "gradual" and "conditional on compliance." Iran will benefit if it adheres to nuclear-related promises, does not obstruct passage through the strait, and restrains regional proxy forces. If not, the benefits will cease. This is a so-called "performance-based" agreement.

However, there are also issues here. What constitutes "compliance"? Who determines violations? Will clashes between Israel and Hezbollah be Iran's responsibility? If an accidental incident occurs in the strait, is that a violation of the agreement?

Sanctions relief is a significant reward for Iran, but it is also a powerful lever held by the U.S. Therefore, in future negotiations, the schedule for sanctions relief and the monitoring system will become the main points of contention.

Mixed reactions of welcome, skepticism, and anger on social media

Reactions on social media reflect the complexity of this agreement.

The most noticeable are the welcoming voices emphasizing the impact on energy markets and the global economy. The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz could curb the surge in oil prices and ease logistical disruptions. Among investors and international political watchers, evaluations such as "avoiding the worst-case scenario" and "a respite for the global economy" have spread.

On the other hand, there is harsh criticism from conservatives and hardliners against Iran. The unclear extent to which Iran's nuclear infrastructure, missile capabilities, and support for regional proxies will be restricted is particularly concerning. There are doubts like "Did we concede too much to stop the war?" and "Isn't this just giving Iran more time?"

Furthermore, among those close to Iranian opposition and human rights activists, there is backlash against the U.S. recognizing Iran's "non-interference in internal affairs." There is concern that the U.S., prioritizing stability with the Iranian government, may push domestic democratization demands and protest movements to the background.

Among some pro-Trump circles, there are voices praising the diplomatic achievement of "ending the war and calming the market," while others express dissatisfaction, questioning whether this is not a similar compromise to the nuclear deal of the Obama era, which was criticized. From anti-Trump circles, there is criticism that "the details of the agreement are too vague" and "the signing is more about theatrics."

In narratives close to the Iranian side, there is a victorious reaction, interpreting it as having made the U.S. recognize the lifting of the blockade and sanctions relief. However, from the perspective of ordinary citizens, it is seen more as a realistic choice due to fatigue from sanctions and war rather than a victory.

What is common on social media is that no one fully trusts this agreement. Those who welcome it add the condition "if it lasts," and those who criticize it hold back, saying "the details are still unclear." This agreement is perceived more as a subject of scrutiny than celebration.

A political gamble for Trump

For Trump, this agreement is a significant political gamble.

If he can end the war, reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and stabilize oil prices, he can strongly claim it as a diplomatic victory. The message of having prevented negative impacts on the global economy is also easy to convey domestically.

However, if the agreement collapses, it will have the opposite effect. Criticism will erupt that Iran did not keep its promises, that coordination with Israel failed, and that the nuclear issue was merely postponed. Especially for Trump, who has previously capitalized on a hardline stance against Iran, accepting sanctions relief or access to funds could provoke some of his support base.

Moreover, this agreement inevitably invites comparisons with the Iran nuclear deal of the Obama administration. Since Trump once criticized Obama's deal as weak, he needs to explain "what is different" now that he is making an agreement with Iran.

The administration will likely argue that this agreement is a system of "giving benefits based on achievements" and that the U.S. is not directly paying funds. However, critics see it as giving Iran time while leaving its nuclear development capabilities and regional influence intact.

The success or failure of the agreement will be measured not by the diplomatic document itself but over the next 60 days.

For Iran, is it a victory or a necessary compromise?

The Iranian government is likely to explain this agreement domestically as a "victory." The lifting of the U.S. blockade, sanctions relief, access to frozen assets, and the possibility of reconstruction funds are indeed significant achievements for Iran.

However, from another perspective, this is also a necessary compromise. The prolonged sanctions, economic losses from war, domestic discontent, infrastructure fatigue, and currency instability were pressures that the Iranian leadership could not ignore.

The confirmation of not possessing nuclear weapons and the processing of enriched uranium under IAEA supervision may appear as concessions to hardliners within Iran. There are also factions that oppose negotiations with the U.S. itself.

Therefore, for Iran, this agreement is not a simple victory. It is a choice to temporarily lower military tensions for the sake of regime maintenance and economic reconstruction.

What will be decided in 60 days?

The main focus now is whether a final agreement can be reached within 60 days.

There are many issues to be addressed in the negotiations.
First, the method of managing the Strait of Hormuz.
Second, the specific timing and scope of sanctions relief.
Third, the procedure for releasing frozen assets.
Fourth, the processing of enriched uranium and the inspection system.
Fifth, the handling of regional security, including Lebanon and Hezbollah.
Sixth, the response in case of agreement violations.
Seventh, backing by a UN Security Council resolution.

None of these are simple. Especially if the agreement is to be backed by the UN Security Council, the interests of not only the U.S. and Iran but also Russia, China, European countries, Israel, and Gulf countries will be involved.

This memorandum is a "pause button" to stop the war. However, if a permanent mechanism cannot be created during the pause, a larger crisis may return the moment the play button is pressed again.

Conclusion: A historic agreement or a postponement of the crisis?

The U.S.-Iran agreement is indeed a historic step. Since 1979, relations between the two countries have been based on hostility and distrust. The fact that these two countries have signed a document aimed at ending the war is significant. The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz is also an important reassurance for the global economy.

However, it is still too early to call this agreement "peace."
The nuclear issue is not completely resolved.
The path to sanctions relief is unclear.
The situation in Israel and Lebanon remains unstable.
There is still opposition within Iran and the U.S.
And the mechanisms for monitoring and implementing the agreement are yet to be created.

It is no wonder that reactions on social media are divided. This is not a victory declaration but the beginning of crisis management.

Even if ships begin to pass through the Strait of Hormuz again, that alone will not bring peace back to the Middle East. What matters is whether that route remains open 60 days later, six months later, or a year later.

This agreement has opened the door to ending the war.
However, whether what lies beyond that door is stability or a passage to the next conflict is something no one knows yet.

Source URL

BBC: Article on the "Contents of the U.S.-Iran Agreement" that served as the basis for this article. Referencing the 14-item memorandum, the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions, nuclear issues, and the $300 billion fund.
##