There will now be a bit of back and forth before they make friends again
The Strait of Hormuz, one of civilization's most consequential passages, has once again become a mirror of geopolitical fragility — reflecting how quickly the architecture of agreement can collapse when foundational questions of sovereignty and control remain unanswered. On Wednesday, only 23 vessels crossed a waterway that ordinarily carries a fifth of the world's oil and gas, the latest consequence of a cycle of US-Iran strikes that has shattered a June memorandum of understanding before its ink had fully dried. The dispute is not merely about ships or routes, but about who holds the authority to define the terms of global commerce in a contested sea.
- Ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has fallen to 23 vessels on Wednesday — less than a sixth of the pre-conflict daily average — after Iran struck three tankers traveling the very route international authorities had declared safe.
- A June memorandum meant to end the US-Iran conflict is now effectively dead, with Trump declaring it 'over' at the NATO summit and Iran accusing Washington of revoking sanctions relief first.
- The two sides cannot even agree on what the agreement said: Iran claims the MOU grants it control over strait routing and the right to collect transit fees, while maritime security experts say it permits no such thing.
- Each attempted recovery collapses into the next round of strikes — traffic climbed to 72 ships daily by late June before plunging again, tracing a volatile cycle analysts expect to repeat until a durable passage agreement is reached.
- Iran's Revolutionary Guard has warned that foreign interference in determining shipping routes will provoke a 'crushing response,' leaving commercial vessels caught between two incompatible sets of instructions about where it is safe to sail.
The Strait of Hormuz, through which more than a fifth of the world's oil and gas flows, has become a chokepoint once more. On Wednesday, just 23 tankers and cargo ships made the crossing — a fraction of the 138 that moved through on an ordinary pre-conflict day, and down sharply from 47 the week before. The collapse followed strikes on three vessels traveling the Omani route that American officials had recommended as safer: a Qatari LNG tanker, a Saudi crude carrier, and a Liberia-flagged ship.
The attacks reignited a fundamental dispute over who controls passage through the strait. Iran insists ships use only a northern route through its own waters and has suggested it should collect transit fees. The US, Gulf allies, and governments across Europe and Asia have rejected this, arguing that passage must be restored to how it functioned before the fighting began.
The violence unraveled what had seemed like fragile progress. In mid-June, the two sides signed a memorandum of understanding committing Iran to safe, fee-free passage for 60 days and the US to lifting its naval blockade and easing sanctions on Iranian oil. By June 24, daily crossings had climbed to 72 — still far below normal, but a meaningful recovery.
Then the agreement fractured. Iran established its own northern shipping lanes and declared them the only safe route. The US-backed maritime intelligence center recommended a different passage through Omani waters. Ships split between the two, and as traffic on the Omani route grew, Iran struck vessels there on June 25 and 27. Trump called it a 'foolish violation' and ordered US military strikes. Iran accused Washington of breaking the deal first and struck back.
The cycle has now reset. Maritime security analyst Martin Kelly described the pattern plainly: escalation, a brief reconciliation, cautious recovery, then another attack — and the cycle begins again. The core disagreement remains unresolved, with experts noting the memorandum was too vague on the strait's governance to settle anything. At the NATO summit, Trump declared the agreement 'over,' though he left the door open to new talks. For now, the ships that depend on the strait are waiting to learn which route, if any, will be safe tomorrow.
The Strait of Hormuz, through which more than a fifth of the world's oil and gas flows, has become a chokepoint again. On Wednesday, just 23 tankers and cargo ships crossed the waterway—a sharp drop from 47 the previous week and a fraction of the 138 vessels that moved through on an ordinary day before the conflict began. The collapse followed a series of escalating strikes between the US and Iran, the latest targeting three ships that had been using a route through Omani waters that American officials had recommended as safer.
The three vessels struck this week—a Qatari liquefied natural gas tanker, a Saudi crude oil tanker, and a Liberia-flagged crude carrier—were traveling close to the Omani route when they came under attack. The incident reignited a fundamental dispute over who controls passage through the strait and on what terms. Iran has long insisted that ships use only a northern route through its own waters and has suggested it should collect fees for transit. The US, its Gulf allies, and governments across Europe and Asia have rejected this outright, arguing that free passage through the strait must be restored to how it functioned before the fighting began.
This latest round of violence unraveled what had appeared to be fragile progress. In mid-June, the US and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding that was meant to end their conflict. The agreement included commitments from Iran to ensure safe passage for commercial vessels without charge for 60 days and to conduct talks with Oman about the strait's future administration. It also promised that the US would lift its naval blockade on Iranian ports and ease sanctions on Iranian oil exports. For a brief moment, the strategy seemed to work. By June 24, traffic had climbed to 72 ships crossing daily—still well below pre-war levels but a meaningful recovery.
Then the agreement began to fracture. After the deal was signed, Iran established a system of shipping lanes along its northern coast and declared them the only safe route. The US-backed maritime intelligence center, by contrast, recommended that vessels use a different passage through Omani waters to the south. Ships began splitting between the two routes, with traffic on the Omani route growing to 28 vessels by June 25—more than were using Iran's preferred northern lanes. Iran responded with warnings and, on June 25 and 27, struck two ships in Omani waters. President Trump called it a "foolish violation" of the truce and ordered US military strikes on Iranian targets. Iran accused Washington of breaking the agreement first and struck back at American-linked facilities in the region.
The cycle has now begun again. After the latest attacks this week, no ships used the Omani route on Wednesday, down from three the day before and an average of about ten daily in the week preceding the strikes. The three tankers that were hit were traveling exactly where international maritime authorities had told them it was safe to go. Martin Kelly, a senior intelligence analyst at the security firm EOS Risk Group, sees this pattern repeating. "There will now be a bit of back and forth between the US and Iran before they make friends again, shipping will peak and trough cautiously until Iran attacks another ship and the cycle starts again," he said.
The core disagreement remains unresolved. Iran claims the memorandum gives it control over the strait, but maritime security experts dispute this reading. Jennifer Parker, a specialist at the University of New South Wales, noted that "the MOU was vague, particularly on issues surrounding the Strait of Hormuz," and that even a generous interpretation "does not permit Iran to attack civilian shipping in Omani waters." Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps issued a statement warning that any foreign interference in determining shipping routes would provoke a "crushing response" and "seriously disrupt the gradual reopening process."
At the NATO summit on Wednesday, Trump declared the memorandum "over," though he left open the possibility of renewed negotiations. Iran, meanwhile, has accused the US of violating the agreement by revoking a Treasury license that had temporarily eased sanctions on Iranian oil exports. Parker observed that neither economic incentives nor military threats have shifted Iran's behavior so far. "The challenge remains finding the right balance between the carrot and the stick," she said. For now, the strait remains contested territory, and the ships that depend on it are waiting to see which route will be safe tomorrow.
Notable Quotes
The only safe route for the passage of commercial ships and oil tankers in the strait is the route determined by the Islamic Republic of Iran— Iran's top military command, Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters
The MOU was vague, particularly on issues surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, but even on a generous reading, it does not permit Iran to attack civilian shipping in Omani waters— Jennifer Parker, maritime security expert at the University of New South Wales
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does Iran insist on controlling the strait when it's been open to all traffic for decades?
Iran sees the strait as its territorial waters and believes it should have a say in what passes through. But more than that, it's leverage. If Iran can make shipping uncertain, it can extract concessions—fees, sanctions relief, recognition of its authority.
And the US won't accept that?
No. The US and its allies view free passage as essential to global commerce. They're not willing to let Iran turn the strait into a toll booth, especially when it's already proven willing to attack ships that don't follow its preferred route.
So the peace deal in June was supposed to solve this?
It was supposed to buy time. Iran agreed to safe passage for 60 days without fees, and the US lifted some sanctions and its blockade. But the deal was vague about long-term control, and both sides interpreted it differently. Iran thought it had won recognition of its authority; the US thought it had just paused the conflict.
What changed?
The US recommended ships use the Omani route instead of Iran's northern lanes. When more vessels started following that advice, Iran saw it as a rejection of its authority and struck back. The US responded with military strikes. Now we're back where we started.
Will this cycle continue indefinitely?
Analysts think so, unless someone finds a way to genuinely resolve the underlying question: who controls the strait and on what terms? Right now, every time shipping recovers, Iran attacks again. Every attack triggers a US response. The strait stays unstable, and global oil supplies stay at risk.
What does Iran actually want?
Recognition that the strait is in its waters and some form of control or revenue from it. But the world's major economies won't accept that. So Iran uses force to remind everyone it has leverage, and the cycle repeats.