Iran does not control the Strait of Hormuz
In a Swiss meeting room, American and Iranian diplomats have begun the difficult work of translating a fragile agreement into durable peace, even as the region bleeds around them. Vice President Vance and Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi sit across from one another under a 60-day clock, negotiating a nuclear framework and a Lebanese ceasefire while Israeli strikes and Hezbollah rockets continue to rewrite the terms of any deal in real time. Iran's claim to have sealed the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which a fifth of the world's oil flows — was swiftly disputed by the US military, but the gesture itself speaks to how much leverage each side believes it holds, and how little trust has yet been earned. What unfolds in Switzerland may determine whether this moment becomes a turning point or simply another chapter in a long story of agreements made and broken.
- A 60-day window to finalize a nuclear deal and Lebanese ceasefire is already under strain before the first handshake in Switzerland, with Israeli strikes killing 47 people in Lebanon on the very day talks began.
- Iran declared the Strait of Hormuz closed in retaliation for what it called Israeli violations of the ceasefire's first clause — a move that, if real, would threaten nearly $600 billion in annual energy trade.
- US Central Command flatly rejected the closure claim, reporting 55 merchant ships and 17 million barrels of oil transiting normally, and issuing a blunt reminder that Iran does not control the waterway.
- Hezbollah accused Israel of deliberately sabotaging the broader US-Iran agreement, while Israel maintained its Lebanon campaign was a separate conflict — a distinction the negotiating table in Switzerland is now being asked to dissolve.
- Pakistan's Prime Minister and top military commander joined the talks as guarantors, signaling that the stakes extend well beyond Washington and Tehran, with 4,057 Lebanese deaths since March underscoring the cost of failure.
Vice President JD Vance arrived in Switzerland on Sunday to open direct negotiations with Iran, even as Tehran claimed it had closed the Strait of Hormuz in response to ongoing Israeli military operations in Lebanon. The US military immediately disputed the claim, reporting uninterrupted traffic through the waterway. It was a charged beginning to talks both sides described as essential to preventing wider war.
The Iranian delegation, led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, had arrived a day earlier. Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir were also present — a sign that the negotiations carried regional weight beyond the two principals. Vance told reporters he hoped to advance both the nuclear question and a lasting ceasefire in Lebanon, acknowledging the ongoing violence while suggesting momentum was slowly shifting toward calm.
The human toll made optimism difficult. Israeli strikes on Saturday killed at least 47 people in Lebanon; four Israeli soldiers also died. Since fighting between Israel and Hezbollah resumed on March 2, Lebanon's health ministry had recorded 4,057 deaths. An agreement signed earlier in the week had called for an immediate end to hostilities and a final deal within 60 days — but the killing had not stopped.
Iran's Revolutionary Guard argued that Israel's continued strikes violated the ceasefire's first clause, which demanded the immediate end of military operations on all fronts including Lebanon, and that closing the strait was justified retaliation. The US rejected this framing entirely, with Central Command noting that 55 merchant vessels carrying over 17 million barrels of oil had transited the passage on Saturday alone. The strait is no abstract symbol — nearly $600 billion in annual energy trade flows through it, and Iran had already demonstrated its willingness to block it following strikes on Iranian territory in February.
Hezbollah accused Israel of trying to sabotage the broader US-Iran framework, while Israel maintained its Lebanon campaign was a separate matter. In Switzerland, those distinctions were being asked to give way to something more durable. Iran's foreign ministry made clear Tehran would arrive demanding accountability. Whether either side could hold to its commitments — or whether the cycle of strikes and counter-strikes would continue to erode what had just been agreed — remained the defining question of the next 60 days.
Vice President JD Vance touched down in Switzerland on Sunday morning to begin direct talks with Iran, even as Tehran claimed it had sealed off the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for Israeli military operations in Lebanon. The US military immediately pushed back on the closure claim, saying ships continued moving through the waterway unimpeded. It was a tense opening to negotiations that both sides framed as critical to preventing wider regional conflict.
The Iranian delegation arrived the day before, led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and the country's top military commander, Field Marshal Asim Munir, were also present—a signal that the talks carried weight beyond the two principals. Pakistan's foreign ministry issued a statement pledging to support whatever understandings emerged from the negotiations. Vance told reporters before boarding his flight that he hoped to make headway on two fronts: the nuclear question and securing a lasting ceasefire in Lebanon. He acknowledged the ongoing clashes between Israel and Hezbollah but suggested momentum was shifting. "Things are actually getting better there, and things are slowing down a little bit," he said, framing the goal as ensuring both Israel and Lebanon could exist safely.
The backdrop was grim. On Saturday alone, Israeli air strikes killed at least 47 people in Lebanon, according to the country's health ministry. The Israeli Defense Forces said it had struck 80 targets linked to Hezbollah and killed dozens of its fighters; four Israeli soldiers died in the same period. Since fighting between Israel and Hezbollah reignited on March 2, Lebanon's health ministry had counted 4,057 deaths. An initial US-Iran agreement signed earlier in the week aimed to end the war immediately and included a commitment to hammer out a final deal within 60 days, but the violence had not stopped.
Iran's military claimed the Strait of Hormuz closure was a direct response to what it saw as Israeli violations of that ceasefire agreement. The Iranian Islamic Revolution Guard Corps argued that Israeli strikes on Lebanon breached the first clause of the 14-point memorandum of understanding, which explicitly called for "the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon." By that logic, Iran said, the deal was already broken, and closing the strait—one of the world's most critical energy chokepoints—was justified retaliation.
The US military rejected the premise entirely. Tim Hawkins, a spokesperson for US Central Command, stated flatly that "traffic continues to flow" and that American forces were monitoring the situation to keep it that way. He added a pointed reminder: "Iran does not control the Strait of Hormuz." On Saturday, 55 merchant vessels transited the passage carrying more than 17 million barrels of oil bound for global markets. The numbers mattered. In 2025 alone, roughly 20 million barrels of oil and oil products moved through the strait daily—nearly $600 billion worth of energy trade annually. Any actual closure would send shockwaves through the global economy.
This was not Iran's first attempt to weaponize the strait. After the US and Israel attacked Iranian territory on February 28, the country had effectively blocked the waterway, rattling energy markets worldwide. The strait is deep enough to accommodate the world's largest crude oil tankers and serves as the lifeline for major Middle Eastern producers and their customers. Closing it, even partially or temporarily, carries enormous leverage.
Hezbollah, the Iran-backed militia based in southern Beirut, had accused Israel of trying to "sabotage" the broader US-Iran deal through its continued operations. The US government itself had criticized Israel's ongoing military campaign in Lebanon, which had drawn the country into the conflict when Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel in retaliation for American and Israeli strikes that killed Iran's supreme leader. Israel had previously insisted its conflict with Hezbollah was separate from the war with Iran and said it had no intention of withdrawing forces from Lebanon. Yet here, at the negotiating table in Switzerland, all these threads were being pulled together.
Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei signaled that Tehran would come to the talks demanding accountability. "We will be demanding that the other side fulfil its commitments," he said. The next 60 days would determine whether either side believed the other was serious about peace, or whether the cycle of strikes and counter-strikes would continue to unravel what both had just agreed to build.
Citações Notáveis
Things are actually getting better there, and things are slowing down a little bit.— VP JD Vance, on Israel-Hezbollah clashes
We will be demanding that the other side fulfil its commitments.— Esmail Baghaei, Iran's foreign ministry spokesman
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz matter so much if the US says it's not actually closed?
Because the claim itself is a message. Iran is saying the deal is already broken, and it's using the one lever it has—control over one of the world's most vital shipping lanes—to make that point heard. Whether ships are actually flowing or not, the threat is real.
But the US says Iran doesn't control the strait. Is that true?
Technically, yes. But Iran can make transit difficult, slow things down, create uncertainty. That uncertainty alone moves oil prices. And if things escalate, Iran could make good on the threat. The US has to take it seriously even while denying it.
So both sides are claiming victory while accusing the other of breaking the deal?
Exactly. Israel keeps striking Lebanon. Iran says that violates the ceasefire. The US says Israel's actions are separate from the Iran deal. Iran says no, they're all connected. Everyone is interpreting the agreement differently.
What does Pakistan have to do with any of this?
Pakistan is a regional power with its own interests in stability. Having its prime minister and military chief there signals that this isn't just a US-Iran negotiation—it's about preventing the whole region from destabilizing. Pakistan wants to be seen as a stabilizing force.
Is Vance's optimism about things "slowing down" credible?
He's trying to project confidence, but the numbers tell a different story. Forty-seven people killed on Saturday alone. Four thousand dead in Lebanon since March. "Slowing down" is relative when the violence hasn't stopped.
What happens if they can't reach a final deal in 60 days?
Then you're back where you started—or worse. The ceasefire collapses, the strait becomes a real flashpoint, and the region slides back into open conflict. The clock is running.