Tehran is currently utilizing its control over the Strait of Hormuz as a primary instrument of leverage, refusing to reopen the vital maritime artery until the United States honors specific commitments made in a June 17 memorandum of understanding. While negotiations with Oman regarding the technical logistics of shipping traffic through the strait are nearing completion, Iranian officials remain adamant that a full reopening is contingent upon Washington meeting broader political and economic demands.
According to analysts, the Iranian leadership views the strait as a critical “commitment mechanism.” There is a prevailing fear within Tehran that if the waterway were opened prematurely, President Donald Trump might abandon the ongoing conflict resolution process without fulfilling the necessary provisions of the June agreement. That helps explain why Iran is continuing to keep the vital energy artery largely closed even as separate negotiations with Oman over how shipping could eventually move through the strait approach their final stages.
Esfandyar Batmanghelidj, founder of the Bourse & Bazaar Foundation, noted that Iran is prioritizing economic relief and reconstruction funds before relinquishing its control over the waterway. “Iranian officials are concerned that if the strait opens, Trump would walk away from this conflict without feeling the need to resolve it,” he said. “They want to use the strait as a commitment mechanism to ensure Trump implements the various provisions of the MOU.”
Ali Vaez, Iran project director at the International Crisis Group, described the strategic importance of the strait as a “sword of Damocles over Trump.” He noted that Iran is seeking to front-load benefits from the agreement without surrendering its main source of leverage. For Tehran, the strait is not merely about navigation fees or maritime rights; it is about maintaining control to ensure the rest of the diplomatic package is delivered.
The conditions for reopening the strait, as outlined by Iranian security chief Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, include the lifting of the US naval blockade and sanctions on Iranian oil and petrochemical exports. Furthermore, Tehran demands the release of frozen Iranian assets, the withdrawal of US forces from the region, and a total cessation of attacks on Iran and its regional allies.
A significant new addition to these demands is the requirement for war compensation. Tehran is explicitly calling for reparations for damages sustained during the conflict, a condition that was notably absent from the original June memorandum. This demand reflects the internal pressure within the Iranian government, where hardliners remain deeply suspicious of Washington and are reluctant to surrender their strongest bargaining chip without concrete, irreversible benefits.
The calculation in Tehran is straightforward: once Hormuz fully reopens, Iran risks losing the pressure point required to force President Trump to fulfill the remaining elements of the deal. Analysts suggest that the critical issue is not the size of individual concessions, but whether Washington can demonstrate a credible commitment to honoring the agreement in its entirety.
Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House, emphasized that the memorandum of understanding serves as the foundational structure for any future deal. Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed that while technical talks with Oman are progressing well and are in the final stages, these discussions are distinct from the political requirements for reopening.
Araghchi clarified that an agreement with Muscat regarding shipping maps and logistics would not automatically trigger a return to normal operations. “However, an agreement with Oman does not mean reopening the strait, which remains dependent on fulfilling conditions conveyed through mediators,” he stated. This distinction underscores that the technical and political tracks remain separate.
The ongoing closure of the strait continues to exert pressure beyond the immediate US-Iran conflict. Higher energy prices affect global markets, and Arabian Gulf states, which rely heavily on the waterway for their exports, have a strong incentive to encourage both Washington and Tehran to reach a final, binding agreement.
Internal divisions within Washington also influence Iran’s strategy. Tehran observes a split between officials who favor diplomatic engagement and those who advocate for sustained military pressure. By maintaining the blockade, Iran aims to force a unified, favorable response from the US administration.
Ultimately, the situation remains a high-stakes standoff. As long as the “sword of Damocles” remains suspended over the strait, Iran believes it can prevent the US from walking away from the negotiating table, ensuring that the June memorandum evolves into a comprehensive, long-term resolution.
Tehran appears determined to hold on to its most powerful bargaining chip until US President Donald Trump delivers on commitments Washington made under a June 17 memorandum of understanding, according to analysts cited b
End the US naval blockade: Iran wants restrictions around its ports lifted.
Yes — and that is where an important distinction emerges.
That makes trust perhaps the biggest obstacle.