Iran

Tehran, Iran – The memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed last week between Iran and the United States appears to be in jeopardy after a second day of military strikes, as well as the a framework agreement that entrenches Israeli forces on Lebanese soil.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on Sunday released video showing the launch of ballistic missiles overnight, with a message written on them in English and Persian saying US President Donald Trump was insisting on a “defeated war”.

The IRGC said it had fired missiles and drones towards the US Ali Al Salem airbase in Kuwait and the US Fifth Naval Fleet in Bahrain in retaliation for a second day of US strikes. It threatened more attacks if the deal is violated again by the “deceitful” US, which, along with Israel launched air attacks across Iran on February 28.

The exchanges of fire come after the US coordinated the transit of vessels out of the Strait of Hormuz in cooperation with Oman and the International Maritime Organization.

Many ships were being directed through Oman’s waters, which prompted the IRGC to hit a container ship and a tanker with explosive-laden drones in an attempt to force traffic to pass through Iranian waters instead.

Speaking to reporters in neighbouring Iraq on Sunday, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran will exercise sole management and oversight of the critical waterway for the next 30 days before allowing full traffic to resume.

He also emphasised the first clause of the June 17 MoU, which says military operations must immediately and permanently end on all fronts, including Lebanon, and urged Washington to exert pressure on Israel to stop attacking southern Lebanon.

The governments of Israel and Lebanon reached a US-brokered framework deal on Friday that allows Israeli forces to remain in southern Lebanon, until Tehran-backed Hezbollah is fully disarmed. That appears to contradict the MoU signed with Iran.

Hezbollah swiftly rejected the agreement, calling it “humiliating, shameful and a surrender” of Lebanon’s sovereignty.

Negar Mortazavi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, said she expected the Lebanon issue to negatively impact the MoU because Hezbollah was not on board and the Lebanese government’s previous ceasefire deals with Israel have been repeatedly violated.

She also told Al Jazeera that Iran has found tremendous leverage with the Strait of Hormuz, treating it as a “golden card”, as the disruption to oil exports has heavily impacted markets and made the war unpopular among many, including in the US.

“They are using that leverage to the max and not going back to the status before the war, pretending like no war happened,” she said, adding that Iranian authorities and the IRGC have sought to centre themselves in the process of coordinating transit through the strait.

“They’re saying they want traffic to go through in coordination with them, and I think they will be able to exert that kind of power,” she said.

On Saturday, Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian, Speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and judiciary chief Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei released an image of their first publicised trilateral meeting since the start of the war more than four months ago.

Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has not been seen or heard from since succeeding his father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in a US-Israeli attack on the first day of the war. But a new written text message attributed to him on Sunday said: “What is certain is that the criminals must be seized by the collar and made to face the punishment for their criminal acts”.

Supporters of the Islamic Republic cheered on the latest IRGC attacks against US interests as they continued demonstrating on the streets overnight into Sunday as hardline politicians and analysts called for further attacks until Iran gets better concessions.

On the state-linked talk show, Tamam Rokh, political analysts said Tehran should significantly strengthen its ties with Moscow and Beijing.

“We could do many things with help from Russia and China to damage US strategic equipment in the region like vessels, refuelling aircraft and electronic warfare,” pro-state analyst Ali Samadzadeh said on the programme on Saturday.

“There was no movement in Tehran to tie Beijing and Moscow to the war, and this major flaw exists in the form of the negotiations and the text of the MoU as well,” he said.

More than 60 hardline legislators on Sunday postponed plans to protest against the closure of parliament since the start of the war after its presiding board said it would meet to reconvene the assembly, following Ali Khamenei’s burial next month.

Many others say demands for extracting major concessions from the US and Israel do not correspond with the reality of the situation after months of war.

“In terms of military power, we couldn’t do anything about the US blockade and we didn’t think the crisis would get so serious,” pro-state commentator Vahid Ashtari told crowds at a street event in Tehran.

“I think a type of blind idealism has emerged that believes we are on top and at the peak, so we shouldn’t make a deal. But there are facts on the ground. We have some missiles and drones to carry out an asymmetric defence, but we have no fighter jets to fly to the US and hit Trump. Not only could we not avenge [Khamenei], we could not avenge Haj Qassem either,” he added, in reference to General Qassem Soleimani, who was assassinated by the US in 2020.

After two nights of attacks, Iran’s financial markets also reacted poorly, with the national currency losing gains since the signing of the MoU to trade at about 1.7 million rials against the dollar in Tehran’s open market on Sunday.

The main index of the Tehran Stock Exchange also lost more than 100,000 points to stand at just over five million points at the end of trading on Sunday, the second day of the working week in Iran.

Vahid, a 37-year-old mechanic who also deals in car parts in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar, told Al Jazeera that while the market has marginally improved since the signing of the deal with the US, it is still treading on thin ice.

He said parts for foreign cars are becoming harder to find, while prices have been rising rapidly for both domestic and foreign vehicle parts.

“I think the war will start again over the coming months and some in the bazaar think the same,” he said.

Iran’s foreign minister has urged ‘all parties not to interfere’ in the management of the Strait of Hormuz, after the US bombed Iran for a second day following a drone attack on a vessel. Abbas Araghchi says the MoU gives Tehran control of the waterway, during a press conference with his Iraqi counterpart in Baghdad.

Bahrain and Kuwait have condemned Iran’s retaliatory attacks after a second day of US strikes on Iran. Tehran University academic Hassan Ahmadian argues the US is trying to find its way out of the Memorandum of Understanding that Trump signed 10 days ago, ending the war.

WASHINGTON — A spectacular economic upturn is on its way, President Trump promised Americans last week, galvanized in part by a deal brokered this month to end his war with Iran.

“Very soon you’ll be at $2.50 a gallon for gasoline,” Trump told a crowd Wednesday night on the National Mall. The next year, he said, “is set for an economic boom the likes of which no nation has ever seen before.”

Economists are skeptical. The effects of the war and other factors driving inflation are likely to stick around for months, experts say, presenting an ongoing challenge to American households — and to Trump’s party as it seeks to retain control of Congress in November’s midterm elections.

Yesenia De La Torre, 24, from Culver City pumps gas at the Chevron gas station on Sawtelle Boulevard and Culver Boulevard on June 15. Despite an agreement announced Sunday to end the Iran war and open the Strait of Hormuz, high oil, gasoline prices and energy supply problems won’t be solved overnight.

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

The war’s end will not create “a complete snap-back,” said Patrick Harker, professor at the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School and former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.

“Markets are still cautious, and the infrastructure that’s been destroyed [in the Middle East] is going to take a while to re-create,” Harker said. “Inflation’s going to stay elevated for a while.”

Oil prices were dropping last week — falling to their prewar level Friday — and average gas prices fell by 7 cents per gallon over a week ago. But it will take significant time for oil shipping to ramp up through the Strait of Hormuz, infrastructure to be rebuilt and gas prices to drop, said Michael Negron, senior fellow for economic opportunity at the Center for American Progress.

“I would expect there to be a continued inching downward,” Negron said, but “we’re not going to just go back within weeks to $2.90 per gallon.”

That means the prices of gas and of other essentials aren’t likely to improve dramatically before the midterms, in which affordability has become a driving issue. It could heighten challenges for Republicans, who are defending their majorities in the U.S. House and Senate, as Democrats seek to leverage the issue to gain ground.

Positive messaging about the economy from Trump and other officials “doesn’t really resonate” with Americans who are struggling to make ends meet, said Gina Plata-Nino of the Food Research and Action Center, a national anti-hunger advocacy organization.

“When you’re still making the same amount of money but there’s less for you to be able to pay [for] your basic needs — gas is more expensive, food is more expensive — it doesn’t really add up,” she said.

A fruit stand on West 7th Street sells bananas for $2 per bunch.

(Carlin Stiehl / For The Times)

Americans question the costs

The Iran war has cost the average American household between $775 and $1,300 so far in fuel and taxpayer costs, according to an analysis by Roger Pielke, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

The national average gas price sat at $3.90 on Friday, according to AAA, and California’s average was $5.48 per gallon, down 13 cents from a week earlier.

The increase in oil prices has also affected diesel and fertilizer prices, creating a ripple effect through several sectors, including agriculture. Consumer prices rose 4.1% in May from a year earlier, putting the inflation gauge at a three-year high.

Trump has leaned on a bullish message about the economy, but he has largely dismissed Americans’ worries about affordability, calling it a “fake word” and a “hoax.” Last week, he undermined the first major progress by Congress on the issue, refusing to sign a bipartisan housing affordability bill after both chambers passed it.

President Donald Trump closes his eyes as Dr. Ben Carson, left, speaks during an event with the White House Religious Liberty Commission in the Oval Office on Friday.

(Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)

Meanwhile, the president’s approval rating on the economy dropped to 33% last week in an NPR/PBS News/Marist Poll — his lowest ever for that poll and 3 points below former President Biden’s worst reading on the question during his term.

Nearly four-fifths of respondents said that gas prices present some sort of strain, with 34% categorizing it as a major strain and 44% calling it a minor strain. Half of respondents who said they were not vacationing this summer said cost was the reason.

And only 23% of Americans say the war was worth the costs, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted days after the Trump administration announced the framework agreement to end the conflict earlier this month.

“People [are] just feeling like they’re getting left behind,” Harker said. “That’s a very real, palpable feeling when you go out and talk to people. They’re worried.”

The president and his party need a midterms message that “real economic change” is coming, said Brian Reisinger, a rural policy analyst in Wisconsin and a former GOP strategist.

“It has to be substance behind the sell,” Reisinger said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) speaks to reporters after the weekly Senate policy luncheons at the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday in Washington, D.C. Thune spoke on a meeting with President Trump on the Iran deal.

(Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images)

U.S.-Iran talks on shaky ground

Trump’s boosters have hailed the Iran deal as a victory for the president. And Trump has justified the shock to gas prices as “worth it not to have a nuclear weapon” in Iran, though the war has not achieved the president’s stated aims, which included the elimination of its nuclear program.

“President Trump was clear all along that there would be short-term, temporary disruptions to energy markets, and that oil and gas prices will quickly fall as soon as the Iran situation is resolved,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said Friday.

How rapidly the conflict will be resolved is not yet clear. The U.S.-Iran negotiations were on shaky ground by week’s end, with each country offering diametrically opposed messaging on the status of key points of negotiation.

Analysts say much of the increase in traffic through the strait has been driven by the return of Iranian oil to global markets. Trump agreed in the controversial deal with Iran to lift sanctions on Iranian oil, allowing Tehran to resume trading its most valuable export and breaking with decades of U.S. policy.

The unpredictability of the talks is another factor keeping energy companies, shippers and insurers cautious for now, Negron said.

“Everything is to be negotiated in the next nearly two months,” he said. “It is natural to expect there to be additional risk priced into each barrel of oil, into the insurance people are paying, just because of the volatility and uncertainty of where we are.”

Iran has launched attacks on Bahrain and Kuwait after the United States struck five Iranian targets, escalating tensions and threatening the fragile ceasefire agreed by the two sides earlier this month.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) confirmed the attacks on Sunday, saying it launched ballistic missiles and drones at the US Ali Al Salem airbase in Kuwait and the US Fifth Naval Fleet at Port Salman in Bahrain.

Bahrain condemned the attacks, saying they violated its sovereignty and undermined “opportunities for de-escalation and stability in the region”, while Kuwait described the “repeated heinous Iranian aggressions” as a “flagrant violation of its sovereignty”.

The US military hit Iran’s Sirik, Bandar-e Lengeh and Qeshm Island on Saturday. US Central Command (CENTCOM) said its navy and air force “conducted strikes tonight on 10 Iranian military targets at multiple locations in and near the Strait of Hormuz”, saying the attacks were a response to an Iranian drone attack on the Kiku oil tanker.

It said the Panama-flagged vessel was carrying more than two million barrels of crude oil when it was attacked as it transited near the strait early on Saturday.

Britain’s UKMTO maritime security agency ⁠said the tanker hit on Saturday had sustained damage to its bridge, with all crew reported safe.

Strait of Hormuz

The weekend attacks come after the US struck Iran on Friday following drone attacks on vessels near the Strait of Hormuz.

The Singapore-registered Ever Lovely container ship was hit by a drone on Thursday. No injuries were reported. The US responded by hitting locations near Sirik, while Iran responded by attacking US military locations in the region.

Iran has said vessels transiting the strait can only use its designated route and warned that ships using any other routes would be violating the ceasefire agreement.

The International Maritime Organization suspended its plan to evacuate ships stranded in the strait on Thursday after the attack on the Ever Lovely.

President Donald Trump said late on Saturday that Tehran had violated the ceasefire agreement, which was signed on June 17.

“There may come a point when we are no longer able to be reasonable, and will be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started,” he posted on social media. “If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist!”

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the US strikes on its monitoring and surveillance facilities on its southern coast. It said the “brutal attacks” were in violation of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and the United Nations charter.

It added that they showed the US “does not place the slightest value and credibility on its commitments” and said Iran would defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity against “US military aggression”.

Agreement under strain

The MoU signed by the US and Iran extended a ceasefire in their war that began with US-Israeli attacks on Iran on February 28, giving both sides 60 days to negotiate an end to the fighting.

Access through the Strait of Hormuz is a key element of the MoU. During the war, Iran blocked the waterway through which about 20 percent of the world’s oil passes, triggering a global energy crisis.

Article 5 of the MoU states that Iran will “make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels” through the strait during the 60 days. It states that Iran and Oman, along with other Gulf states, will discuss the future administration of the strait.

Wolfgang Pusztai, a defence analyst, told Al Jazeera that while neither the US nor Iran have an interest in a bigger escalation, “there is a risk that this might happen unintentionally.”

“If there are some hits in residential areas, if a larger number of civilians are getting killed in the Arab Gulf states, if an American base is hit severely so that the American soldiers are killed, this might easily get out of control,” he said.

June 27 (UPI) — The United States attacked Iranian drone sites Saturday morning, and Iran hit Bahrain in response.

In Bahrain, two one-way attack drones hit the country, according to the New York Times. One was shot down by a ground-launched air-defense weapon, a U.S. official told the Times, and the other landed without harm in a remote airfield.

“This constitutes a flagrant violation of its sovereignty, a blatant threat to the safety of citizens and residents,” Bahrain’s foreign ministry said in a statement.

The United States used six F35 and F16 Air Force jets to hit four Iranian sites in the strait, an anonymous official told The Times.

Ebrahim Azizi, a conservative Iranian lawmaker, said in a social media post that the U.S. attacks on Friday were a “reckless violation of the cease-fire” and warned that the attacks would lead the United States to “retreat and regret.”

Azizi added that the strikes show that President Donald Trump “has no commitment to the principles of negotiations.”

On Friday afternoon, Trump ordered strikes on Iran after it staged a drone strike on a shipping vessel transiting the Strait of Hormuz. The president had made vague threats on Iran and said that the country had attacked ships in the strait.

Vice President JD Vance, who has been handling the negotiations, posted on X that the United States had honored the MOU.

“If they have disagreements about how the MOU is being applied, they can pick up the phone,” he posted. “But violence will be met with violence.”

Saturday morning, another ship was hit in the strait by an “unidentified projectile” damaging its bridge but causing no injuries to the crew, according to the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations Center. The organization didn’t say who launched the attack.

Mohsen Rezaei, a former Iranian military chief who advises Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, accused the United States of “continuing to create tensions” in the strait. “The response to the violation of any article of the memorandum of understanding will be swift and decisive,” he said in a post on social media, The Times reported.

The US has conducted new strikes on Iran, following a drone attack on a Panama-flagged vessel in the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday.

US Central Command (Centcom) said it hit multiple targets across Iran in direct response to “continued aggression” against commercial shipping.

In retaliation, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said it has launched missiles and drones at US infrastructure in Kuwait and Bahrain, in a statement shared to state media.

Following the exchange of fire, the US and Iran accused each other of violating the ceasefire agreement.

Centcom said in a statement, “Iran was given a chance to honor the ceasefire agreement but elected not to when its forces launched a one-way attack drone that hit MT Kiku,” a Panama-flagged tanker.

In response, it said, US fighter jets conducted strikes on 10 Iranian military targets at multiple locations in and near the Strait of Hormuz. These included military equipment, communication systems, air defense sites and drone storage facilities.

In the IRGC’s statement, it said the US had attacked five coastal posts in Iran under what it called “the pretext of the IRGC Navy confronting the offending ship”.

In retaliation, the IRGC said it had launched ballistic missiles and drones at “eight key pieces of infrastructure” at the Ali al-Salem base in Kuwait and the Fifth Naval Fleet in Port Salman, Bahrain, “destroying them”.

A US official has told Reuters that there were no reported US casualties or major impacts or damage to US facilities in the Middle East.

The IRGC said that under the Memorandum of Understanding signed earlier this month, Iran has arrangements for controlling passage and navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, and from now on, violating ships will be dealt with more forcefully than in the past.

“Any potential enemy aggression, under any pretext, even if the aggressions are against minor targets, as happened last night and tonight, will have a crushing response,” read the statement.

It also accused the US of violating the ceasefire agreed to in the memorandum of understanding between the two nations, warning that it “will lead to a complete halt to the process”.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry has also condemned what it described as the “brutal attacks” a violation of the ceasefire, adding it showed that the US “does not place the slightest value and credibility on its commitments, and breaking promises is part of its nature.”

Shortly after the latest US strikes on Iran were announced, Trump said on Truth Social that it was “very possible” that Tehran would “never learn”.

“There may come a point when we are no longer able to be reasonable, and will be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started,” he wrote on Saturday evening.

The post went on: “If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist!”

In the hours following the US strikes, Kuwait and Bahrain both reported that their air defence systems had been activated.

“Kuwaiti air defenses are currently confronting hostile missile and drone attacks,” the Kuwaiti Armed Forces said in a statement shared to X, asking the public to adhere to security instructions.

Bahrain’s Ministry of Interior has urged citizens to “remain calm and head to the nearest safe place”.

Centcom said that commercial vessels are continuing to operate in the Strait of Hormuz.

The latest strikes come less than a day after the US launched retaliatory strikes on Iran that it said were in response to a drone attack on Singapore-flagged cargo ship, MV Ever Lovely, on 25 June.

Centcom described the American strikes as “a powerful response” to the attack on the cargo ship, adding that the “unwarranted aggression against commercial shipping by Iranian forces clearly violated the ceasefire”.

Tehran said the cargo ship was attacked because it was using an unauthorised route to transit through the Gulf waterway, and said that the retaliatory strikes qualified as a ceasefire violation by the US.

In a statement released on Saturday morning, Iran’s foreign ministry said it had carried out more strikes against targets linked to American forces in response, and blamed the “treaty-breaking US regime” for the situation.

The US and Iran agreed on 17 June to end hostilities under a 14-point memorandum of understanding, which had also called for Iran to use its “best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days”.

The Strait of Hormuz is a key waterway for oil and gas shipments, and was effectively closed by Tehran after the US and Israel launched attacks on Iran at the end of February.

The shutdown of the critical channel caused a spike in global oil prices and prevented shipments of other crucial commodities such as fertiliser.

US president threatens to ‘militarily complete the job’ as US strikes Iran over ship attacks.

For a second day in a row, the United States has launched strikes on Iran, once again citing an attack against a commercial vessel as a motivation.

Saturday’s renewed attacks are the latest indication that a Middle East ceasefire, established as part of a June 17 memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran, might be at breaking point.

In a statement, US Central Command (CENTCOM), which directs military action in the Middle East, explained that the latest attacks came “at the Commander in Chief’s direction”.

“CENTCOM forces launched strikes today in direct response to continued Iranian aggression against commercial shipping,” the command centre wrote.

“U.S. military aircraft targeted Iranian military surveillance infrastructure, communication systems, air defense sites, drone storage facilities, and minelayer capabilities.”

Explosions were reported in southern Iran, around the village of Tahrui, near the port of Sirik, which was also the focal point of Friday’s US attacks. State media also indicated that Qeshm Island had been hit.

Responses to cargo ship strikes

Saturday’s strikes against Iran followed a similar playbook to Friday’s.

Early on Saturday morning, at about 4:30am Eastern US time (08:00 GMT), the Panama-flagged tanker Kiku was travelling through the Strait of Hormuz when it was reportedly hit by an unidentified projectile.

No crew members were injured, and no leakage was reported from its cargo.

CENTCOM said the ship had been carrying more than 2 million barrels of crude oil when it was hit by a “one-way attack drone”.

The website MarineTraffic.com indicates that the tanker left the Al Shaheen oilfield on Thursday and is due to dock in Fujairah, in the United Arab Emirates, on Sunday.

A similar sequence of events prompted Friday’s volley of US attacks.

In that case, a Singapore-registered container ship, the Ever Lovely, was struck by a drone as it sailed through the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday. No one on board was injured, and the boat continued on its travels.

But US President Donald Trump denounced the drone strike on Friday as a “foolish violation” of the June 17 memorandum.

By that evening, the US and Iran had exchanged fire, with the US targeting the area around Sirik, and Iran hitting US military installations in the Middle East.

CENTCOM referenced Friday’s actions in announcing the latest round of strikes.

“After yesterday’s U.S. strikes in response to the Iranian attack on M/V Ever Lovely, Iran was given a chance to honor the ceasefire agreement,” CENTCOM wrote.

Iran “elected not to”, it added, citing the Kiku drone strike. CENTCOM also maintained that commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a sticking point in ceasefire negotiations, would continue, with US military backing.

“U.S. forces remain vigilant, lethal, and ready,” CENTCOM said in its statement.

Controlling the strait

Central to the latest round of fighting is control over the Strait of Hormuz, a key artery for maritime traffic. Nearly 20 percent of the world oil supply passed through the narrow waterway in peacetime, as well as significant quantities of fertiliser and natural gas.

But after the US and Israel launched attacks on Iran on February 28, launching the present-day war, Tehran moved to shut down traffic through the strait, which sits between its shores and Oman’s.

Iran’s decision sent global fuel prices skyrocketing, and that generated pressure, both domestic and international, for the Trump administration.

The June 17 memorandum was designed to provide relief. Though it was a prelude to further negotiation, the deal called for the US, Iran and their allies to “declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon”.

It also outlined a 60-day period during which time Iran was to make its “best efforts” at allowing commercial traffic to transit through the Strait of Hormuz at no charge.

That part of the memorandum specified that Iran and Oman, the two countries that border the strait, would determine “future administration and maritime services” in the waterway.

But continued fighting in Lebanon has prompted Iran to threaten the strait’s closure once more.

Then, there is the question of the memorandum’s terms. Experts say the US and Iran have come to different understandings of how the June deal should be enforced.

Al Jazeera correspondent Resul Serdar Atas explained that Iran believes it should be allowed to restrict commercial traffic that does not have prior clearance to pass through the strait.

“Article Five of the memorandum of understanding, according to the Iranian officials, is clearly saying that any ship, whether it’s going through the Iranian territorial water or the Omani territorial water, has to be in full coordination with the Iranian authorities,” he said.

“But that is not understanding of Americans. The Americans are saying, ‘Well, if it is going through the Omani territorial waters, they do not need to coordinate with the Iranian authorities.’”

That, in turn, is leading to a disagreement over who is violating the terms of the ceasefire. The US sees Iran as violating the agreement by interfering with commercial vessels, while the Iranians perceive the US as breaking its commitment to stop fighting.

“That is the pattern,” Serdar Atas said. “For Americans, keeping the Strait of Hormuz open is quite important for the stability of the global economy. But for Iran, the Strait of Hormuz being under Iranian control is the ultimate deterrence and the biggest leverage.”

Tit-for-tat ‘could get out of hand’

Some of the hostilities are a result of the high level of distrust between Iran and the US, according Hassan Ahmadian, a professor at the University of Tehran.

He noted that Iran’s insistence that ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz receive its clearance could be read as a defensive action.

“I think the Iranians will not let go of this because obviously they want only commercial ships, according to the MoU, to pass through the strait. So any ship that doesn’t coordinate might be a military one, might carry military stuff,” Ahmadian said.

He believes that the latest flurry of US attacks may prompt Iran to halt any deliberations with the Trump administration as they seek to cement a peace deal.

The US side, meanwhile, is likely to face pressure from rising oil prices as the result of the renewed fighting, according to Harlan Ullman, a retired US naval officer and chairman of The Killowen Group, a global advisory firm.

Still, Ullman warned that the latest exchange of fire could spiral into an escalation in violence, rendering the memorandum of understanding moot.

“The agreements are very, very fragile, and this tit-for-tat could get out of hand,” Ullman said.

“If prices go up, as I suspect they will, that will be a moderating influence, and I think the United States will consider that rising oil prices are not good, and it will probably continue the negotiations.  But right now, who knows?”

Israel and Lebanon have agreed on a new framework agreement after four days of marathon talks in Washington, DC, brokered by the United States, trying to end the months-long conflict.

Israel has been occupying almost 20 percent of Lebanese territory in the south and has killed more than 4,000 people since fighting erupted on March 2. A previous bout of fighting ended in a ceasefire in November 2024, but Israel carried out almost daily attacks and refused to end its occupation in breach of the deal.

The new deal, however, does not specifically call for the withdrawal of the Israeli forces and instead ties it to the disarmament of Hezbollah – a condition repeatedly rejected by the Iran-backed armed group.

Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem on Saturday rejected the framework agreement, calling it “null and void”. Hezbollah has demanded that Israel first end its occupation.

Hezbollah supporters flooded the streets of the capital, Beirut, on Friday evening to oppose the deal.

So, what is the new agreement, which does not include Hezbollah, and can it lead to peace in Lebanon?

What’s in the Israel-Lebanon agreement?

After the trilateral signing in Washington, the US Department of State released the text of the agreement, which talks of a “sequenced process” that will see the Lebanese army restore “effective sovereign authority over all Lebanese territory, pending the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups” – a clear reference to Hezbollah.

The deal does not mandate Israeli withdrawal from the fifth of Lebanese land it occupies. Instead, the framework notes that Israel shall “progressively redeploy” out of Lebanon, offering two “pilot zones” where the Lebanese military “will gradually assume full and effective security responsibility”.

“One [pilot zone] is south of the Litani River and outside the security zone altogether, and the other is north of the Litani – a small area in the expanded security zone that we conquered in the last two weeks, and which the [Israeli military] says it does not need,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu later said in a statement.

Once these conditions are met, “Lebanese civilians will be able to safely return to these areas under the exclusive control of Lebanese state authorities,” the framework says. More than 1.2 million people have been forcefully displaced.

Israel says that successfully returning southern Lebanon to Lebanese government control would “eliminate any future need for [Israeli military] action or presence in Lebanon” and “[declared] that it has not territorial ambitions in Lebanon”.

The Lebanese government has signed that it rejects “the claims of any state or non-state actor to use force on its behalf without its explicit authorization,” deeming such attacks “illegal” and “contrary to Lebanese national interests”.

How have parties to the conflict reacted to the agreement?

Israel

Netanyahu issued a video statement shortly after the agreement was announced, stressing that the framework would allow the Israeli military to remain in the occupied Lebanese land.

“We will maintain [the buffer zone] until Hezbollah disarms and as long as there is a threat to the State of Israel,” Netanyahu said.

It is also a partial, momentary win for Netanyahu, who faced intense domestic criticism after the US and Iran sidelined Israel to sign the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, which mandates an end to hostilities in Lebanon as well.

Lebanon

President Joseph Aoun expressed gratitude to Trump and other regional mediators after the signing of the trilateral agreement, which he hailed as “the first step on the path to restoring Lebanon’s sovereignty”.

In a statement from the Lebanese presidency, Aoun noted that the framework also “marks the beginning of the road to fructify [Lebanese citizens’] sacrifices, so that they may return to their fully liberated land”.

His statement has done little to tamp down the tensions in the capital, where supporters of Hezbollah took to the streets, burning tyres and blocking a road leading to the airport.

Hezbollah

Though the armed group is not a party to the agreement, and was not present at the negotiating table, its posture and actions will dictate where the conflict heads in the future.

The Hezbollah leader on Saturday condemned proposals to tie the Israeli withdrawal to the group’s disarmament. “Linking the Israeli withdrawal to the disarmament of the resistance throughout Lebanon is a very dangerous proposition that crosses all red lines,” he said.

“The framework agreement in Washington is humiliating, shameful, and a surrender of sovereignty,” he said.

He added that the framework agreement should be replaced by the Iran-US Memorandum of Understanding (⁠MoU) signed on June 15.

Earlier, Hassan Fadlallah, a Hezbollah representative in the parliament, said Lebanese authorities would not be able to enforce the framework agreement unless, with US support, “they go to civil war”.

In a televised speech before the agreement was signed, Qassem said that Hezbollah would hold its weapons closer, ready to fight Israel for Lebanon, if the Lebanese state fails to do so.

The Iran-US MOU called for the “territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon” – a similar wording has been used in the framework agreement.

United States

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Washington’s point person in Israel and Lebanon talks, announced an “immediate” $100m donation by the US towards humanitarian assistance in coordination with the UN.

At the signing ceremony at the State Department in Washington, Rubio appeared to acknowledge the limited scope of the agreement, calling it “the beginning of the beginning.”

“There’s a lot of work ahead. We don’t in any way underestimate the difficulty of the task ahead, but we understand the importance of it, how vital it is, and we are honored to have played a part in bringing this together,” he said.

Two previous ceasefire agreements brokered by Washington failed to stop the fighting in Lebanon, as well as the Islamabad MOU, signed by President Trump and his Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian, earlier this month.

Iran

Though Tehran is yet to officially react to the agreement, its state media has been pressing against the deal.

Fars news agency noted that the agreement is essentially the US permitting Israel to violate the first clause of the Islamabad MOU, which mandated the cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon.

Does the Israel-Lebanon agreement contradict the Islamabad MOU?

Analysts point towards two direct contradictions between the preliminary deal signed by the US and Iran, and the latest agreement between Israel and Lebanon.

In short, the Islamabad MOU mandates the end of hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon, with no conditions – while the Israel-Lebanon agreement ties it to Hezbollah’s disarmament.

Israel has not adhered to any of the ceasefire agreements, including earlier ones, and continued with its assault on Lebanese territories. On Saturday, Lebanese state news agency NNA reported that the Farah amusement park intersection in Nabatieh al-Fawqa was targeted by an Israeli drone strike.

Israel has killed at least 4,192 people in Lebanon since the start of the war on Iran four months ago.

Secondly, the Islamabad MOU does not refer to or mention any of the Iran-backed proxy armed groups among its listed clauses to take forward the negotiations to end the war.

Tahani Mustafa, a visiting fellow on the Middle East and North Africa programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told Al Jazeera that Israel and Washington would “definitely use the fact that Hezbollah refuses to disarm and capitulate to blame Hezbollah for derailing the entire process”.

Mustafa further added that Israel “has also proven that it is acting in bad faith, which really gives no confidence to Hezbollah to disarm or capitulate in the way that is being demanded.”

Washington is not blame-free either, she noted, arguing that “the American negotiators actively work behind the scenes to try and decouple Lebanon and Iran.”

“This has really just been something that both the Israelis and the Americans have attempted to cook up behind the scenes and once again obfuscating the blame for its failure,” she told Al Jazeera.

Can a deal work if Hezbollah rejects?

This is not the first time that Hezbollah’s disarmament is on the table – and the existing challenges remain. The 2024 deal also called for Hezbollah’s disarmament, but it could not be achieved as Israel continued to attack Lebanon and refused to withdraw its troops in breach of the deal.

Alon Pinkas, an Israeli former ambassador and consul general in New York, says he is “very doubtful and sceptical” that this will work out because the deal is between Israel and Lebanon with the US; the issue here is Hezbollah.”

Iran’s linking of the Lebanon conflict to the maturation of an agreement with the US, Pinkas says, “complicates things [because] Netanyahu said that [Israel] would not yield to any linkage to Iran and that Israel would defend itself in Lebanon”.

Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem said that the agreement is an “existential threat” to Hezbollah’s presence.

“Without Hezbollah’s consent, this is not going to happen,” Hashem said. “This is going to be a recipe for another confrontation. The Lebanese government isn’t capable of imposing this deal. It’s not the de facto force on the ground.”

The US has struck Iran for the first time since the two sides reached a Memorandum of Understanding on June 17. The US says it hit Iranian military sites amid claims Iran’s forces attacked a commercial ship in the Strait of Hormuz.

U.S. Central Command said it struck Iranian targets today in response to an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) attack on a cargo vessel exiting the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday. This marks the first U.S. kinetic response against Iran since Washington and Tehran signed a Memorandum of Understanding about a peace deal last Friday.

CENTCOM said the strikes were “a powerful response to yesterday’s attack on a commercial ship that was transiting the Strait of Hormuz.” The command added that “U.S. aircraft struck Iranian missile and drone storage locations and coastal radar sites after Iran hit M/V Ever Lovely on June 25 with a one-way attack drone. The Singapore-flagged cargo ship was exiting the Strait of Hormuz along the Omani coast at the time of Iran’s attack.”

That incident “clearly violated the ceasefire,” the command proclaimed. “Furthermore, Iran’s dangerous behavior undermined freedom of navigation as commerce increasingly flows through the vital international trade corridor.”

As we noted yesterday, the attack on the Ever Lovely prompted the U.N. International Maritime Organization (IMO) to pause its plan to evacuate hundreds of ships stuck in the Persian Gulf which has been largely closed since Iran was attacked by the U.S. and Israel.

Earlier on Friday, President Donald Trump told reporters “We’ll find out,” when asked if Iran faced any consequences for the ship attack.

Asked if he considered the ceasefire to still be in place, the president said: “I don’t like the fact that they took a shot yesterday. Actually, four, we knocked down three at a ship, not an allied ship, but a ship, a very expensive ship, and it was fine, but it took a little beating. They shouldn’t be doing that. You’ll find out.”

There was no immediate military response from Iran, a U.S. official told us. However, as we have reported in the past, these kinds of attacks have resulted in tit-for-tat kinetic actions between the two nations. We also do not know the level of command and control the Iranian government has over hardline IRGC elements and if these kinds of attacks are occurring independent of the government leadership’s wishes.

In its post on X, CENTCOM said its forces CENTCOM forces “continue to provide safe passage coordination and support to commercial vessels transiting the strait. The U.S. military remains present and vigilant to ensure all aspects of the agreement with Iran are adhered to, obeyed, and in full force and effect.”

The U.S. and Iran continue to negotiate over a future peace deal, but many sticking points remain, including how the country’s nuclear material will be dealt with and future nuclear operations monitored.

This is a developing story.

UPDATE: 5:56 PM EDT –

After the U.S. airstrikes, Iran reiterated that it will continue to hold at risk shipping in the Strait that does not follow its rules for transit.

“Iran has repeatedly stated that the situation in the Strait of Hormuz will not return to what it was before the U.S. attack on Iran,” the official Iranian IRIB media outlet stated on X. “Any transit through the Strait must follow the routes announced by Iran; otherwise, the security of vessels cannot be guaranteed.”

UPDATE: 8:05 PM EDT-

The IRGC Navy claims it “struck American military targets in the region in retaliation for earlier aggression against Iranian coastal areas,” the official Iranian Press TV media outlet reported.

“The force made the remarks in a statement issued on Friday, saying its reprisal ‘targeted the deployment sites of the US terrorist military in the region,’” the outlet added.

However, there was no visual proof provided of any attack.

CENTCOM declined comment.

Iran’s IRGC says it targeted US military in region after Trump administration launched attack on the country.

The US has struck Iranian missile and drone storage sites in retaliation for what it says was an Iranian attack on a commercial ship in the Strait of Hormuz. The tit-for-tat has raised doubts about the stability of the US-Iran agreement, as Kimberly Halkett reports.

June 26 (UPI) — President Donald Trump said Friday that Iran has attacked ships in the Strait of Hormuz and that it’s a violation of the cease-fire between the United States and Iran.

A cargo ship in the strait was attacked Thursday, but it’s unclear if this is the attack about which the president was speaking.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran shot at least four One Way Attack Drones at Ships transversing the Strait of Hormuz. One of the Drones solidly hit the upper deck of a large and very expensive Cargo Carrying Ship. Damage was done, but the Ship was able to proceed on its way. We knocked down three other Drones. Obviously, this is a foolish violation of our Ceasefire Agreement. President DONALD J. TRUMP,” the post on Truth Social said.

Trump did not address the negotiations with Iran.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi posted a statement on X Friday emphasizing Iran’s control of the strait.

“Safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, with ambiguous arrangements, parallel routes, or decision-making outside of Iran’s considerations as the coastal state, cannot be guaranteed. Any credible framework must be based on coordination with Iran and the provisions of paragraph five of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding. Otherwise, the outcome will be the suspension of the designated parallel route,” the post said.

The memorandum of understanding that Trump and Iran’s president signed on June 17 established the cease-fire and opened passage through the strait. In the fifth paragraph, it said Iran will use its “best efforts” to ensure the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days, The Hill reported.

On Thursday, the United States issued a joint statement with the Gulf Cooperation Council saying that “free, unconditional, and unrestricted navigation” through the strait is guaranteed under international law.

“The Ministers rejected any tolls, fees, or attempts to assert control over the strait,” the statement said. The council includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The United Nations’ International Maritime Organization (IMO) has suspended plans to evacuate more than 11,000 sailors stranded in the Strait of Hormuz after a cargo ship transiting the waterway was struck by a projectile.

IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez said several crews had already been evacuated, but the agency had decided to pause the operation until there were “necessary safety guarantees” for those involved.

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), a Royal Navy maritime security agency, said on Thursday that a cargo vessel had been struck by “an unknown projectile” about 7.5 nautical miles (14km) southeast of Dahit, Oman. No casualties were reported.

The incident comes despite a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed by the United States and Iran last week that ended hostilities and included provisions aimed at reopening the strategic waterway. Iran had restricted passage through the strait in early March after the US and Israel attacked it on February 28. In April, the US imposed a naval blockade on Iran-linked vessels trying to pass through the waterway.

Since the MoU was signed, commercial traffic has restarted through the strait, but key disagreements remain over which shipping routes vessels should use — and whether Iran gets to charge a toll or fee.

Oman and the IMO have proposed a new shipping corridor that would partially bypass waters under Iran’s direct control. Tehran has rejected the plan, saying it was announced without consultation and raises safety concerns while demining operations are still under way. While Iran has not claimed responsibility for Thursday’s attack on the ship off Oman, it has not denied any role, either.

The latest attack has heightened concerns that tensions over navigation through the strait remain unresolved. Here’s what we know.

Why is the UN evacuating sailors?

Following the outbreak of the US-Israel war on Iran on February 28, Tehran and Washington imposed counter restrictions on the passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz, leaving thousands of seafarers unable to leave vessels trapped in the waterway.

More than a dozen sailors have also been killed in attacks on ships — some from American missiles, others from Iranian projectiles. Most of those killed were from India.

Even with last week’s agreement between Washington and Tehran to end the conflict, more than 11,000 sailors remain stranded in the strait.

Announcing the evacuation plan on Tuesday, the IMO’s Dominguez said the operation would be conducted in “close cooperation with Iran, Oman, all other coastal states in the region, the United States and the maritime industry”.

Oman’s Ministry of Defence said the operation, which had been under discussion for months, would be carried out in phases.

Denmark also announced on Tuesday that it would join a multinational maritime mission led by France and Britain to help restore safe navigation through the strait.

Why was the ship attacked?

The Singapore-flagged cargo vessel Ever Lovely was struck by what authorities described as an “unknown projectile” while transiting the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday.

Ship-tracking data from MarineTraffic showed the vessel had been following the southern shipping route proposed by the IMO earlier that day, a corridor that passes closer to Oman’s coastline and has been rejected by Iran.

Singapore’s Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) said the vessel had since completed its transit through the strait and was continuing its voyage, adding that all 21 crew members were safe.

The authority said it was “deeply concerned” by an attack it described as “unprovoked, unjustifiable, and a breach of international law”.

“All actions affecting international shipping must fully comply with international law, in particular the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and not endanger the safety of seafarers and ships at sea,” the MPA said.

The incident prompted the IMO to suspend its planned evacuation of stranded sailors. Dominguez said the Ever Lovely “did not transit under IMO’s evacuation framework”.

“I have always reiterated that the safety of the seafarers remains paramount. Therefore, to ensure a coordinated approach and navigational safety, the evacuation plan will be paused until further clarity is obtained,” he said.

What has Iran said?

While it remains unclear if the attack was carried out by Iran, the country’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had criticised the new shipping corridor announced by Oman and the IMO, while also warning that passage through the strait, “is only possible via routes announced by Iran,” the state broadcaster IRIB reported.

Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, has said safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz cannot be guaranteed for vessels transiting “with ambiguous arrangements, parallel routes, or decision-making outside of Iran’s considerations as the coastal state”.

“Any credible framework must be based on coordination with Iran and the provisions of paragraph five of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding,” he said in a statement on X. “Otherwise, the outcome will be the suspension of the designated parallel route.”

Iran first published its own map of approved navigation routes in April, directing ships to sail much closer to the Iranian coastline than before the conflict.

The IRGC’s latest warning came after a Liberian-flagged oil tanker transited the strait on Thursday using a route closer to Oman’s coast.

On Friday, a further three foreign oil tankers that attempted to cross the Strait of Hormuz “without authorisation” were turned back after a warning from the IRGC, Iranian state TV reported.

Analysts say control over the Strait of Hormuz has long been one of Tehran’s most important sources of strategic leverage, allowing it to exert pressure on the US, whose economy is inextricably tied to global markets.

Why was the evacuation suspended?

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar Atas said the attack appeared to show Iran was prepared to enforce its warnings over navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, after Tehran insisted vessels using either the Iranian or Omani route must coordinate with its authorities.

“Yesterday, Oman announced new routes for the passage of the ships. But then the IRGC released a statement, saying that whether the ships go through the Iranian or Omani territorial waters, they need to be in full coordination with Iranian authorities,” Atas said.

“And if they violate that, then Iran is going to act accordingly. So the question was whether Iran is going to really act or not?

“The answer is yes. Now, we have seen that a tanker has been attacked by some projectiles in the Strait of Hormuz. The Revolutionary Guards did not claim responsibility but did not deny it either.”

Atas added that Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, had also warned that any shipping arrangements made without taking Iran’s position as a coastal state into account would be unacceptable.

“Perhaps, in the coming days and weeks, we are going to see that the Strait of Hormuz will be one of the main sticking points.”

What other disputes remain?

Under last week’s memorandum of understanding, Iran agreed it would “make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge, for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa”.

Although the agreement says commercial traffic should resume immediately, it also acknowledges that mines laid during the conflict must first be cleared, stating that “demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran will be instated within 30 days”.

It also provides for discussions between Iran, Oman and other Gulf states over future arrangements for managing navigation through the waterway.

However, the agreement does not specify what will happen after the initial 60-day period.

Last week, Tehran announced it would waive any transit fees during those 60 days while negotiations with the United States continue in Switzerland, raising the possibility that charges could be introduced if no broader agreement is reached.

Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, has also suggested Tehran does not intend to return to the pre-war status quo.

“Hormuz will never return” to how it operated before the conflict, he said. The proposal has also faced resistance from the United States and several Gulf states.

Are ships still moving through the strait?

Commercial shipping has gradually resumed, although traffic remains well below normal levels. Before the conflict, between 120 and 140 vessels typically passed through the Strait of Hormuz each day.

According to maritime analytics firm Kpler, 54 verified commercial and energy-related vessels transited the strait on Thursday, down from 70 verified crossings the previous day.

“West-to-East movements dominated, while the Omani Route accounted for the largest share of identified passages. Yet route transparency remains incomplete, with several Dark or Unknown crossings recorded.

“A reported projectile strike on a cargo vessel southeast of Dahit, Oman, adds fresh operational risk, underscoring the gap between improving physical flows and still-fragile maritime security conditions,” Kpler added.

At a fan zone, we met Egyptian fans cheering on Mexico days before their team takes on Iran. For them gay pride was irrelevant.

“Right now it’s about two teams trying to get to the next round,” Makarius Demian told us, adding that he supports gay rights. “Pride match or no Pride match, that’s not what matters.”

Not far from the big screen, an Egyptian restaurant pop-up is getting ready for the match – and for fans craving a taste of home. ‘Koshari’ is a staple Egyptian dish; a mix of lentils, chickpeas, pasta, fried onions and garlic tomato sauce.

Owners Ayman Almasri and Amani Abouammo shut their restaurant Koshari for the duration of the World Cup to open a pop-up version at the fan zone where they were serving up the vegan Egyptian street food.

They say having Egypt and Iran play in a Pride match is awkward and rooted in cultural misunderstanding.

“Here it is the culture. People are used to that,” Abouammo said. “Back home, people are not used to it. It’s this piece of confusion that each party cannot understand the other party.”

On the pitch, there is plenty at stake. Egypt come into this match with momentum after beating New Zealand, and with a real chance of winning Group G.

Iran, meanwhile, arrive in a very different mood – their tournament already shaped by politics, travel restrictions and complaints about preparation time, even if they have been allowed to get to the host city earlier than in previous matches.

As Egypt and Iran try to edge closer to the knockout stages, this match is about more than what happens on the pitch.

It is also a glimpse of what happens when a World Cup lands in a city celebrating one set of values, while two of the teams taking part arrive carrying very different ones of their own.

The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz has restored the flow of oil and natural gas after more than 100 days of disruption, but the crisis has already left a lasting mark on global energy markets. The prolonged closure exposed the vulnerability of the world’s energy supply chain and has prompted governments to reconsider how they secure fuel supplies.

Analysts say the crisis mirrors the impact of the 1973 Arab oil embargo, which transformed global energy policy by encouraging conservation, diversification, and strategic stockpiling. While today’s energy system proved more resilient, the Hormuz disruption may accelerate a broader shift away from fossil fuels.

What Happened?

The Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 20 percent of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies normally pass, remained effectively closed for more than three months during the US Israeli conflict with Iran.

Despite the disruption, global markets avoided a severe supply crisis through rapid rerouting of cargoes, the release of strategic reserves, reduced Chinese imports, and shifting demand patterns.

However, analysts say these emergency measures were only temporary. Energy inventories fell sharply during the crisis, and markets were approaching a critical point before shipping resumed.

Why the Crisis Matters

The Hormuz disruption demonstrated that even today’s highly interconnected global energy system remains vulnerable to geopolitical conflict.

Unlike previous crises, the world avoided a complete energy collapse because governments, traders, and shipping companies quickly adapted. Nevertheless, the episode exposed the limits of those emergency responses and reinforced concerns about overreliance on a single strategic chokepoint.

The crisis is expected to influence long term energy investment decisions far beyond the Middle East.

Lessons From the 1973 Oil Embargo

The 1973 Arab oil embargo fundamentally changed global energy policy after oil producing nations restricted exports to countries supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War.

The embargo caused oil prices to surge, triggering inflation and prompting governments to adopt fuel efficiency standards, develop domestic oil production, establish strategic petroleum reserves, and create the International Energy Agency.

Rather than ending fossil fuel use, the crisis encouraged countries to consume energy more efficiently while reducing dependence on imported oil.

A New Energy Strategy Emerges

The Hormuz crisis appears to be driving another major strategic shift, particularly across Asia.

Countries heavily dependent on Middle Eastern oil and gas are increasingly prioritizing energy security over low fuel costs. Governments are expected to expand strategic petroleum reserves while accelerating investment in domestic renewable energy, nuclear power, and alternative fuel sources.

India, Pakistan, Japan, and South Korea are among the countries reviewing long term strategies aimed at reducing exposure to overseas energy disruptions.

Europe Continues Its Energy Transition

Europe entered the Hormuz crisis after already reshaping its energy system following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

The loss of Russian energy supplies forced European countries to cut gas consumption, diversify imports, and rapidly expand renewable energy capacity.

The latest Middle East disruption is expected to reinforce that trend by encouraging further investment in clean energy and energy efficiency while reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels.

Investment Trends Support the Shift

Global investment patterns already suggest that energy markets are evolving.

According to the International Energy Agency, worldwide energy investment is projected to reach 3.4 trillion dollars this year, with much of the growth directed toward renewable energy, electricity infrastructure, battery storage, and grid resilience rather than new oil production.

Electric vehicle sales continue to rise rapidly across Europe, Latin America, and Asia Pacific, while Chinese solar panel exports have surged across Africa and Southeast Asia.

Governments are also increasing spending on energy efficiency, with around 20 countries introducing new conservation measures directly in response to the Hormuz crisis.

Why It Matters

The Hormuz crisis has reinforced that energy security is becoming just as important as energy affordability.

Rather than relying solely on global oil markets, governments are increasingly pursuing diversified energy systems that combine fossil fuels with renewables, nuclear power, strategic reserves, and domestic production.

This transition is expected to influence investment, industrial policy, and international trade for years to come.

Future Outlook

Oil and natural gas are expected to remain central to the global economy for decades, particularly in transportation, manufacturing, aviation, and power generation.

However, future growth in fossil fuel demand may become significantly slower as governments invest more heavily in renewable energy, electric vehicles, battery storage, and efficiency improvements.

The Hormuz crisis may ultimately be remembered not as the event that ended the oil era, but as the moment many countries accelerated preparations for a more diversified energy future.

Implications

The Hormuz crisis is likely to have consequences that extend far beyond the immediate recovery in oil and gas flows. Governments that experienced supply disruptions are expected to place greater emphasis on energy security, even if it comes at a higher economic cost. This could accelerate the expansion of strategic petroleum reserves, diversify import sources, and increase investment in domestic energy production, including renewables, nuclear power, and critical energy infrastructure.

For oil exporters in the Gulf, the crisis may strengthen the case for developing alternative export routes that bypass the Strait of Hormuz, reducing dependence on a single maritime chokepoint. Import dependent economies, particularly across Asia, are also likely to rethink long term procurement strategies by securing more flexible supply contracts and expanding storage capacity.

Financial markets are also expected to assign a higher geopolitical risk premium to energy prices. Even after shipping has resumed, investors may continue to price in the possibility of future disruptions, increasing volatility across oil, gas, shipping, and insurance markets. The crisis could also accelerate capital flows into technologies that reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels, including electric vehicles, battery storage, hydrogen, and energy efficiency.

Analysis

The Hormuz crisis may ultimately prove more significant for what it revealed than for the physical disruption it caused. Although global energy markets demonstrated remarkable resilience, that resilience depended on temporary measures such as drawing down inventories, rerouting cargoes, reducing consumption, and relying on spare production capacity. These mechanisms bought time rather than solving the underlying vulnerability of the global energy system.

Unlike the 1973 Arab oil embargo, which primarily forced consuming nations to improve efficiency while expanding fossil fuel production elsewhere, today’s crisis occurred at a time when commercially competitive alternatives to oil and gas already exist. Renewable energy, electric vehicles, battery storage, and advanced power grids have matured into viable strategic assets rather than purely environmental investments. As a result, governments are increasingly viewing clean energy not only as a climate policy but also as a national security priority.

Another important distinction is the shift in investment behavior. Historically, supply disruptions often encouraged greater investment in oil exploration and production. Following the Hormuz crisis, however, a growing share of capital is moving toward energy diversification instead of simply increasing fossil fuel output. This suggests policymakers increasingly see reducing oil dependence as a more sustainable way to improve resilience than expanding strategic reserves alone.

The crisis also exposed a structural imbalance in global energy markets. While production remains concentrated in politically sensitive regions, demand growth is increasingly centered in Asia, leaving major importers highly exposed to geopolitical instability. Countries such as India, Pakistan, Japan, and South Korea may therefore pursue parallel strategies of securing diversified hydrocarbon supplies while rapidly expanding domestic renewable generation, nuclear power, and energy storage.

Perhaps the most important takeaway is that energy security has overtaken cost as the dominant driver of policy decisions. For decades, governments largely optimized their energy systems for affordability and efficiency. The Hormuz disruption demonstrated that the cheapest energy source can quickly become the most expensive if geopolitical events interrupt supply. That realization is likely to reshape government policy, corporate investment, and global energy trade for years to come.

The crisis does not signal the immediate end of the oil era. Oil and natural gas will remain indispensable for transportation, petrochemicals, aviation, heavy industry, and electricity generation in many regions. However, it may represent an inflection point where the trajectory of fossil fuel demand begins to flatten as countries systematically reduce their strategic dependence on imported hydrocarbons. In that sense, the Hormuz crisis could be remembered less as an energy supply shock and more as the catalyst that accelerated the next phase of the global energy transition.

With information from Reuters.

EXPLAINER

Israeli and Lebanese delegations will continue their talks on Friday.

Israel continues to attack southern Lebanon on Friday as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledges that the Israeli military is “not going to withdraw” from occupied areas.

Israel currently occupies about one-fifth of Lebanon.

This comes amid progress on the interim peace accord between the United States and Iran aimed at ending the US-Israel war on Iran, which began on February 28.

Here is what is happening:

In Iran

• IAEA chief says inspectors to return to Iran: The interim US-Iran peace accord – also being referred to as the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) – gives inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to Iran, the agency’s chief Rafael Grossi said, after Tehran indicated that key sites would remain off-limits until a final deal with Washington is reached and sanctions are lifted.
• “There is an agreement and to comply with that agreement, the IAEA will have to have access and inspect,” the UN nuclear watchdog chief Grossi said at a news conference in Japan. “We hope to be there soon.”
• UN halts escort of ships through Hormuz: The UN International Maritime Organization (IMO) paused its operation to escort ships through the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday after a vessel reported an attack, reigniting concerns about whether a preliminary deal to end the Iran war will hold. The cargo ship said it was hit close to Oman by a projectile, the British Navy agency UKMTO said.
• On Thursday, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) warned vessels not to attempt to pass the strait without its express permission, despite Oman and the IMO releasing details of a new safe route. In April, the IRGC released its own safe-transit route for approved ships, showing shipping lanes much closer to its own coast.

In the US

• Trump says unfrozen Iranian assets will be used to buy US agricultural products: US President Donald Trump reiterated during an event for US farmers that unfrozen Iranian assets will be spent on buying wheat, soya beans and corn from the US. Iran has not confirmed this.

In Lebanon

• Two killed in Israeli raid: Two people were killed and another person was wounded in an Israeli raid on the town of Mayfadoun, in southern Lebanon’s Nabatieh district, the National News Agency reported, citing the country’s Ministry of Public Health.
• An Israeli air raid also hit the town of Nabatieh al-Fawqa, according to Al Jazeera Arabic.
• Talks to continue: A US State Department official has told Al Jazeera Arabic that Israeli and Lebanese delegations will resume their meetings on Friday.

Global economy

• India ends commercial gas restrictions: India has lifted restrictions on supplies of commercial liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) imposed during the war, when energy supplies were hit by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the global energy chokepoint.
• Aramco resumes oil loading: Saudi Aramco, the world’s largest oil company, has resumed oil loading at its Ras Tanura terminal in the Gulf after a nearly four-month halt, shipping data showed.

Brent crude rises after cargo ship comes under attack in key waterway.

Oil prices have jumped after the United Nations maritime agency called off its planned evacuation of ships stranded around the Strait of Hormuz following an attack on a cargo vessel in the waterway.

Brent crude, the international benchmark, rose as much as 4 percent on Thursday after the International Maritime Organization paused its evacuation plan amid renewed violence in the strait.

Brent futures for August delivery stood at $74.89 per barrel as of 02:00 GMT, after earlier dropping below $72.48, their closing price the day before the United States and Israel launched their war on Iran.

After dropping sharply following the US and Iran’s signing of a memorandum of understanding on ending the war last week, the price of Brent currently stands at about 3 percent above its pre-war level.

Asian markets opened lower on Friday, with key indices in Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan seeing steep losses.

Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 and Seoul’s Kospi both fell more than 3 percent in morning trading, while the Taiex dropped about 1 percent.

In Hong Kong, the Hang Seng Index was down about 1 percent.

The latest attack in the strait, through which about one-fifth of global oil and liquified natural gas supplies transit in peacetime, dealt a blow to hopes for a return to normal shipping in the region after a recent resurgence in traffic.

On Wednesday, 70 vessels transited the waterway, a more than twofold increase from the previous day and the highest daily figure since March 1, according to ship tracking platforms MarineTraffic and Kpler.

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) centre said on Thursday that a cargo vessel reported being struck by an “unknown projectile” on its starboard side while attempting to cross the strait near the Omani coast.

Multiple media outlets, including The New York Times, CBS News and the Reuters news agency, cited unnamed US officials as saying the attack had been carried out by Iran.

Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority, which claims the right to regulate shipping in the strait, said after the attack that any vessel attempting to use routes outside its designated “framework” would not be guaranteed safe passage.

“The consequences arising from passage through unauthorized routes shall be the responsibility of the owner, operator, and vessel commander,” the authority said on X.

June Goh, a senior oil market analyst at Sparta in Singapore, said the attack was a reminder to markets of the fragility of peace in the strait amid the tenuous US-Iran ceasefire.

“There is a pressing need for tankers to enter and offload the high crude stocks from onshore tanks in order for normal production to resume again,” Goh told Al Jazeera.

“Thus, security of the passageway is paramount to recover the lost supply.”

The U.N. International Maritime Organization (IMO) paused its plan to evacuate hundreds of ships stuck in the Persian Gulf after a vessel was attacked in the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday. A U.S. official told us the attack was carried out by an Iranian drone, which was confirmed by Iranian officials.

The evacuation plan, which IMO developed with Oman, was designed to provide safe passage to vessels in the Persian Gulf that are still unable to transit the Strait, which has been largely closed since Iran was attacked by the U.S. and Israel. The announcement came as traffic was beginning to move through the Strait again amid ongoing, albeit tense peace talks between the U.S. and Iran. However, these transits represent a tiny fraction of what took place before the war.

The IMO decision today also came after a warning earlier on Thursday by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGC-N) that safe passage through the Strait was limited to routes designated by Tehran and that other routes were “unacceptable and completely dangerous,” according to The Washington Post. The publication cited Iranian state-run media. The IRGC-N also claimed it turned back several ships trying to transit the Strait through the southern route suggested by IMO. There is also a northern route, near the Iranian coastline while concerns remain about mines in the main route, down the middle of the Strait.

IMO said it is pausing its evacuation plan even though the ship that was attacked was not taking part in that nascent effort.

“Following the launch of the IMO’s evacuation plan, through which several vessels have already been successfully evacuated, I have decided to temporarily pause its implementation in order to reconfirm that the necessary safety guarantees continue to be in place for the ships on our evacuation list and all those in the region,” IMO Secretary-General Mr. Arsenio Dominguez said in a statement. “I have been informed of an attack today in the Gulf of Oman on a vessel which passed through the Strait of Hormuz. This vessel did not transit under IMO’s evacuation framework. I have always reiterated that the safety of the seafarers remains paramount. Therefore, to ensure a coordinated approach and navigational safety, the evacuation plan will be paused until further clarity is obtained.”

“Today marks the Day of the Seafarer, underlining the importance of ensuring that the continued evacuation of the thousands of seafarers stranded in the Persian Gulf can proceed without the risk of them becoming collateral victims in this geopolitical conflict,” Dominguez added.

A maritime security official told us the ship that was attacked was the Ever Lovely, a Singapore-flagged cargo ship, according to MarineTraffic. The incident occurred about 7.5 nautical miles southeast of Dahit, Oman, according to the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) center.

“A cargo vessel has been hit on the starboard side by an unknown projectile, causing damage to the bridge,” UKMTO stated on X. “Master has reported no casualties and no environmental impact. Authorities are investigating. Vessels are advised to transit with caution and report any suspicious activity to UKMTO.”