US-Israel war on Iran

On Tuesday, two tankers were attacked as they transited the Strait of Hormuz via a passage in Omani waters. Gulf countries responded by sharply condemning the attacks and blaming Iran. The United States then launched attacks on Iranian territory, to which Tehran responded by striking Bahrain and Kuwait. US President Donald Trump has now said the memorandum of understanding (MoU) that Iran and the US signed is void.

This latest escalation illustrates how the Strait of Hormuz has become the central issue in the US-Israel war with Iran that began on February 28. Disagreements over the strait’s future have proven to be the hardest to resolve in the US-Iranian negotiations, as questions about Iran’s nuclear programme have been put to the side.

The disruption of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz has an immediate and costly price tag attached, for Iran, for its Gulf neighbours, and for a global economy that has spent four and a half months absorbing the largest oil supply shock in the history of the modern market.

Iran’s leverage is also its liability

For Tehran, the strait is its strongest card – one that is also incredibly costly. Since the war began, Iranian forces have mined the strait, attacked vessels and cut traffic through the passage by roughly 95 percent. This has led to what the International Energy Agency’s Fatih Birol has called “the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market”.

That leverage is real: about a fifth of the world’s oil and a fifth of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) normally move through Hormuz, and no amount of Gulf pipeline capacity can fully replace it.

But Iran has effectively been strangling its own lifeline along with everyone else’s. Iranian crude, once sold for $3 a barrel less than international benchmarks, is now selling at a 20 percent discount. The country’s oil exports collapsed by more than 90 percent in May as US naval enforcement squeezed its shadow fleet.

Even before the war, the World Bank projected that Iran’s economy would contract in 2026. The impact of the collapse of oil sales will be far-reaching because of the closure.

A 60-day US Treasury waiver issued on June 22, permitting Iran to sell oil at full market rates through August 21, but has now been renounced following the attacks on Tuesday.

This is the economic backdrop to Iran’s insistence on asserting joint authority over the strait and floating a system of transit fees or “service charges” for passing ships. Washington has made clear that Iran cannot charge tolls in international waters governed by the right of transit passage under the Law of the Sea.

For Tehran, the dispute is not really about toll revenue, which would be rather modest when compared to its oil income; it is about establishing precedent and sovereignty over a chokepoint that is its only real point of leverage once sanctions relief and frozen-asset release are negotiated.

The latter is itself contested: Iran wants half of an estimated $25bn in frozen assets released immediately, while the US has resisted. A separate $300bn reconstruction fund floated in the MoU has already become a political flashpoint in Washington.

The Gulf is paying for a crisis it didn’t start

For the Gulf states, the Strait of Hormuz crisis has meant improvising around geography. Saudi Arabia has redirected crude through its roughly 1,200km (746-mile) East-West pipeline to the Red Sea port of Yanbu, and the UAE has leaned on the Habshan-to-Fujairah line to the Gulf of Oman.

Together, though, these pipelines carry a fraction of what Hormuz once did, at best 7 million barrels a day of design capacity for the Saudi line and under 1.8 million for the Emirati one, against roughly 20 million barrels a day that transited the strait before the war.

Both alternatives have themselves come under attack: Iranian strikes cut the East-West pipeline’s throughput by an estimated 700,000 barrels a day in April, and drone attacks disrupted loading at Fujairah. Seaborne crude exports from Gulf states excluding Iran fell by roughly half between February and March.

Qatar, host to the talks between Iran and the US, has its own acute stake: its entire LNG export industry depends on the Strait of Hormuz, and it has been pushing the hardest for a settlement.

Oman, drawn into Iran’s sovereignty claim as co-owner of the strait’s territorial waters, is caught between commercial interest in a resolution and a legal position, as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) that publicly rejects Iranian tolls. Iraq, highly dependent on its Gulf terminals, has quietly explored an export route north through Turkiye.

None of these workarounds are cheap, and all of them are political as well as commercial, tying Gulf capitals’ economic fortunes to a settlement between the US and Iran.

The rest of the world: Insurance bills and inflation

Beyond the region, the crisis has been transmitted mainly through two channels: price and insurance. Higher oil prices are passed on to various consumer goods down supply chains and suppress growth. According to estimates, the global economy can slow down to 2.8 percent in 2026 from 3.4 percent last year due to the closure of the strait.

Insurance for Hormuz transit, which cost roughly 0.25 percent of a vessel’s value before the war, has spiked as high as 8 percent, turning a single large tanker’s coverage into a $3m-to-$8m expense. Shipping lines including CMA CGM and Hapag-Lloyd have layered on conflict surcharges of $1,500 to $2,000 per twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU). Washington’s own International Development Finance Corporation has had to step in as, in effect, an insurer of last resort, offering up to $40bn in reinsurance capacity to keep vessels moving.

China has absorbed the largest share of this pain: It takes close to 40 percent of its crude imports through the Strait of Hormuz and buys more than 80 percent of Iran’s oil exports outright, making it simultaneously Tehran’s most important customer and one of the war’s most exposed bystanders. Japan, which sources 70 percent of its Middle Eastern crude via the strait, has already tapped strategic reserves.

For import-dependent economies across Asia and Europe, the strait’s fate is not an abstraction of Middle East diplomacy; it shows up directly in fuel, freight and fertiliser prices.

Oil and gas dominate the headlines, but roughly 30 percent of the world’s seaborne fertiliser trade also passes through Hormuz.

The World Bank’s fertiliser price index has risen more than 12 percent in the first quarter of 2026 and has since climbed to its highest level since October 2022, driven largely by the closure. The Food and Agriculture Organization has warned that the resulting scarcity of urea and other nitrogen products will show up as lower yields through the 2026–2027 growing season, hitting import-dependent and already food-insecure countries in Africa and Asia the hardest.

Unlike an oil-price spike, which mainly stings at the pump, a fertiliser shortfall reaches into next year’s harvest, meaning an unresolved Hormuz standoff carries a slower-moving but longer tail of economic damage than crude prices alone suggest.

That is the arithmetic weighing on both sides. A deal that reopens the Strait of Hormuz without resolving who controls it risks recreating the same instability that shut it in the first place; one that concedes Iranian toll authority risks a precedent Washington and shipping nations will not accept. Until that circle is squared, the global economy is left pricing in a chokepoint that neither side can fully afford to keep closed, nor fully agree how to reopen.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

US President Donald Trump says the US will ‘probably’ carry out another round of strikes on Iran on Wednesday night, following overnight strikes he said were launched in response to Iranian attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

Tehran, Iran – Three weeks after Iran and the United States signed a memorandum of understanding to extend their ceasefire, their truce remains fragile.

Three tankers have been hit in the Strait of Hormuz over the past two days, even as Iran and the US are expected to restart mediated negotiations to end the war next week, after the funeral of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The US military on Wednesday launched large air attacks on Iran’s southern provinces, which prompted the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Iran’s regular army to fire missiles and drones on US interests in Bahrain and Kuwait. Both sides accused each other of violating the understanding signed last month.

But even if a long-term resolution is eventually reached and Western sanctions on Iran are lifted, analysts say that it will take time for the country’s economy to recover.

The economy has been strained by years of local mismanagement and corruption; stringent Western and United Nations sanctions; and, more recently, damage sustained from two wars in a year with the US and Israel, deadly nationwide protests in January, and internet shutdowns.

When numbers tell a story

A falling purchasing power has pushed millions into poverty. Inflation has recently climbed to levels not seen since World War II, when Allied forces occupied Iran, took over railways and food supplies, and contributed to a deadly famine.

The latest report by the Statistical Center of Iran for Khordad, the third month of the Persian calendar that ended on June 21, showed inflation increasing by 88.6 percent compared to the same month of the year before. Inflation was up by nearly 6 percent compared to the second month of the current year.

Food inflation was skyrocketing at almost 134 percent in Khordad compared to the corresponding month a year earlier, with oils and fats surging by more than 278 percent, red meat and poultry by over 178 percent, and bread and cereals by nearly 139 percent.

Unemployment is at 7.5 percent during the current calendar year, according to the latest report by the statistical centre released at the end of June. But labour participation is at just 40 percent, meaning that most working-age people are operating outside the official labour force – including students, retirees, those engaged in irregular informal work, and those not seeking paid work.

The job-quality picture is also grim, as salaries are perennially falling behind expenses, as over 38 percent of officially employed people work more than 49 hours a week, and as youth unemployment is at over 20 percent, the centre reports.

The base monthly minimum wage equals only about $95 using the current open market exchange rate of the US dollar in Tehran. The rate has climbed to 1.75 million rials per greenback over recent days, not far from its all-time low of 1.9 million in May.

The damage — and the road to recovery

Due to a heavy budget crunch, the only relief the government is able to offer amounts to a few dollars’ worth of monthly cash subsidy and electronic coupons for purchasing essential goods.

A late June report by the Central Bank of Iran for the previous calendar year that ended on March 20 showed that gross domestic product (GDP) growth for the year stood at minus 0.7 percent, and gross fixed capital formation, a primary indicator of productive capacity and economic growth, was at nearly minus 12 percent. Imports were down 16.6 percent, as were exports by close to 5 percent.

The damage from nearly 40 days of heavy bombardment during the war, the longest nationwide state-imposed internet shutdown in any country, and a US naval blockade of Iran’s southern ports — the full extent of which remains undisclosed to the public — has only exacerbated Iran’s economic woes. The International Monetary Fund has projected that Iran’s real GDP will shrink by 6.1 percent in 2026.

Still, Mahdi Ghodsi, a senior economist at the Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, said that part of the recent job losses could be recoverable if there is a credible halt to military escalation, restoration of transport and logistics links, more predictable access to energy and fuel, and functioning internet and payment systems.

“In that case, some temporary layoffs in services, retail, transport, construction and small businesses could be reversed relatively quickly, because these activities are highly sensitive to uncertainty and disruptions rather than necessarily destroyed productive capacity,” he told Al Jazeera.

Longer-term challenges

But Ghodsi cautioned that part of the damage is likely to be more persistent.

“Where factories have lost machinery, inventories, imported inputs, workers, working capital, or access to energy, reopening is not simply a matter of returning to normal,” he said, adding that in some cases, full recovery may take years and require large investments, including foreign financing.

Last week, leading satellite imaging provider Planet Labs restored access to imagery for nearly 800 sites across Iran impacted during the war, after lifting earlier restrictions it had placed in response to a US government request to delay or suspend access.

Some Iranians on social media highlighted massive damage done to Iran Electronics Industries (SAIran), a state-owned defence industry heavyweight specialising in optics, communications, semiconductors and medical equipment, among other things.

But along with numerous military-linked sites and assets, and nuclear facilities built over decades now reduced to rubble, Iran’s industrial capacity and civilian infrastructure were also extensively targeted by US and Israeli warplanes and vessels during the war.

Oil and gas facilities, petrochemical and steel giants, electricity outposts, as well as maritime ports, airports, roads, bridges and residential units were significantly damaged.

Work on rebuilding facilities and recovering lost capacities has begun during the period of reduced military hostility over recent weeks, with some airports and industrial units restarting operations.

But a full recovery still appears distant and more destruction could still lay ahead. US President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened extensive attacks against Iran’s electricity grid and infrastructure like bridges if the war resumes.

Economist Ghodsi said the government’s limited fiscal capacity remains one of the central problems, since the state has already faced struggles in financing not only regular expenditures and salaries, but also obligations across public and semi-public sectors. “This fiscal weakness has been one of the drivers of inflation, as budgetary pressures are partly shifted onto the banking system and the central bank through monetary financing,” he said.

Domestic fissures

Speaking at a state-organised event in Tehran last month, Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian expressed concerns about another nationwide protest as public discontent remains high.

“Our most important strength is our unity, and the unity of our people. What I fear is that we fail to serve the people right and they are dissatisfied and come to the streets to protest. Then our might collapses,” he said.

Senior officials spearheading the mediated talks with Washington have backed the process as the viable path to delivering a better economy to the suffering Iranian population.

But hardliners within the system, who perceive Iran to have attained a major victory against superior military powers during the war, continue to vociferously reject giving any concessions.

During Khamenei’s funeral procession in Tehran on Monday, Pezeshkian was filmed getting heckled by anti-deal mourners who demanded blood vengeance for the slain supreme leader and shouted “Death to the compromiser” and “Death to the traitorous homeland-seller”.

Brent crude rises above $76 a barrel for the first time in two weeks amid renewed violence in Strait of Hormuz.

Oil prices have surged as renewed hostilities between the United States and Iran threaten to derail a fragile ceasefire that had brought some relief to global energy markets.

Brent crude, the main international benchmark, rose as much as 3 percent on Wednesday, reversing a slide that had seen prices return to pre-war levels.

Brent futures for September stood at $76.07 a barrel as of 04:00 GMT, the highest since June 23.

The jump came after the US launched strikes on Iran and revoked a temporary waiver of sanctions on Iranian oil, following attacks on three commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.

US, Qatari and Saudi officials blamed Iran for the attacks on the vessels.

US Central Command said on X that it had begun “launching a series of powerful strikes against Iran to impose heavy costs for targeting and attacking commercial shipping crewed by innocent civilians in an international waterway”.

Tehran has not directly claimed responsibility for the attacks, but has repeatedly warned vessels against attempting to transit the waterway on routes it has not approved.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said earlier that Tehran would take “decisive actions to safeguard its national interests and security” in response to the revocation of the sanctions waiver, describing the move as a “blatant violation” of the memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed by Washington and Tehran on June 17.

Tony Sycamore, a senior market analyst at IG Australia, said the MoU’s language was deliberately vague regarding control of the strait and traffic management.

Disagreement between the US and Iran over whether the strait is an international waterway or partly Iran’s territorial waters was never fully resolved, Sycamore said.

“It remains to be seen whether this morning’s US strikes bring a swift end to the latest escalation or Iran elects to continue flexing its leverage over the Strait with actions that fall short of triggering a broader conflict,” Sycamore said in a note to clients on Wednesday.

“At the very least, it will keep markets on edge and does suggest crude oil prices have based for now.”

The US strikes followed a separate move by the US Treasury Department late on Tuesday to revoke its 60-day waiver on sanctions on Iranian oil.

The Treasury Department last month authorised the sale of Iranian oil until August 21 as part of broader negotiations with Tehran, but transactions will now no longer be allowed after 12:01am EDT (04:01 GMT) on July 17, according to a statement on the department’s website.

The new order also rescinds authorisation for any new transactions, including purchases or loading, after Tuesday.

Saul Kavonic, head of energy research at MST Marquee, said he expects oil prices to remain elevated as hazardous conditions persist in the strait and the release of emergency oil stockpiles wind down.

“Iran fully intends to cement its control over the Strait of Hormuz in the coming weeks, which is unacceptable to the US, many Gulf states and global customers, and could result in passage through the strait remaining below 50 percent of pre-war levels for many months with periodic flare-ups in hostilities,” Kavonic told Al Jazeera.

Air raids come after US revokes a waiver that allowed Iran to sell oil, citing the attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

The US military says it has launched airstrikes against Iran as explosions were reported in several locations in the south of the country.

The US Central Command (CENTCOM) said the strikes began on Tuesday, and are being conducted “in response to Iranian attacks on three commercial vessels that were transiting the Strait of Hormuz”.

Iranian media have reported several explosions in the southern port city of Sirik, as well as Qeshm Island and Bandar Abbas.

“According to state TV, six explosions have been heard on the island of Qeshm which is the largest island in the vicinity of the Strait of Hormuz, with very geostrategic significance when it comes to Iran’s control and authority over the Strait of Hormuz,” Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi reported from Tehran.

“The state TV also says that at least seven explosions have been heard in the areas close to Sirik Port which is very important because it oversees the Strait of Hormuz, another strategic point from which Iran imposes its control and authority over the Strait of Hormuz,” Asadi said.

Starting from the time after the signing of the [memorandum of understanding], we have been witnessing limited confrontation and escalation in this highly escalated situation at the Strait of Hormuz,” he added.

Following the blasts, Iran’s foreign ministry said it held the US government responsible for the consequences of breaching the memorandum of understanding (MoU) agreed between the two countries in June, which was supposed to put to an end to the war the US and Israel began against Iran in late February. The MoU mandated lifting the US naval blockade on Iran in exchange for Tehran reopening the vital Strait of Hormuz.

The US also agreed at the end of June to waive sanctions on Iranian oil for 60 days.

However, the US Treasury Department on Tuesday moved to revoke the temporary suspension of sanctions on Iranian oil, less than 20 days sales after the MoU was signed. The department cancelled a licence announced in June that had allowed Iran to produce, sell and deliver crude oil and related products through August 21.

The move by the Treasury Department comes after tankers in the Strait of Hormuz were attacked. A Qatari tanker caught fire off the coast of Oman Monday after being struck by an “unknown projectile” in the Strait of Hormuz, according to the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO).

Iranian television reported claims that the LNG tanker came under attack after ignoring warnings, but Tehran did not directly claim the assault. Neither the US Central Command (CENTCOM) nor the IRGC commented on the incident.

A second ship, a Saudi-flagged crude oil tanker, was also damaged in the Strait of Hormuz when the IRGC fired missiles, sources told Reuters news agency.

A US ⁠official warned that Iran’s attacks on vessels in the Strait ‌of Hormuz were “wholly unacceptable” and would ‌be ‌met with consequences, Reuters reported Tuesday.

In response, Iran’s foreign ministry said it would take any measure it deemed necessary to safeguard the country’s interests and national security.

“The United States’ action in revoking the waiver for the exemption of sanctions on Iran’s oil sales constitutes a blatant violation of Article 10, and the subsequent military operations of this country against Iran also constitute a serious violation of Articles 1 and 2 of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding.” Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, said in a post on social media.

Gharibabadi said the US has “repeatedly” violated the MoU, citing Israeli attacks in Lebanon and threatening statements made against Iran.

The United States-Israel war on Iran has inflicted the greatest disruption to merchant shipping since the back-to-back shocks of the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Since the start of the war in late February, shipping lines have faced attacks on their vessels, lengthy delays and steep rises in operating costs.

Yet even after more than four months of turmoil for the industry, the most enduring legacy of the war for shipping may end up being just how little it ultimately changes.

While shipping firms are expected to more explicitly factor risk into their expenses and diversify supply chains where possible in the future, the indispensable nature of seaborne trade means the industry is likely to continue much as before over the long term, analysts say.

That is likely to be especially the case for the container shipping industry, which, unlike the operators of the oil and gas tankers whose dislocation has roiled energy markets, is not heavily reliant on the Strait of Hormuz to transport its cargoes, which range from agricultural produce to apparel and consumer electronics.

While there is no alternative to the strait to access oil-producing Gulf nations by sea, container shipping firms have had the option of redirecting their vessels along longer alternative routes to avoid conflict in the region, including attacks by the Iran-aligned Houthis in the Red Sea.

The global shipping industry has long stood apart for its resilience in the face of crises, bouncing back from major upheaval at remarkable speed.

In 2020, the first year of the COVID pandemic, global container shipping volumes fell by just 1.2 percent compared with the previous year, according to the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO), one of the world’s largest associations for shipowners.

By January 2021, the volume of cargo handled at ports worldwide had already surpassed pre-pandemic levels, rising 6.4 percent year-on-year, according to data from the Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics.

By contrast, it took more than four years for global air travel to fully recover from the shock of COVID-19.

While the Iran war and Houthi attacks in the Red Sea since 2023 scrambled regional supply chains, shipping companies have been rapidly adding capacity since Washington and Tehran signed their memorandum of understanding on ending the conflict on June 17.

After plummeting from 3.2 million TEU (Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit of cargo) to 74,000 TEU as of mid-June, container capacity in the region has already rebounded to pre-war levels on some routes, according to Xeneta, an ocean and air freight rate market analytics platform.

Capacity between Asia and the United States’ West Coast last week surpassed its pre-conflict record, hitting 350,000 TEU, according to Xeneta.

On Monday, Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd, the second- and fifth-largest container shipping firms, respectively, announced that they would begin sailing through the Suez Canal again for the first time since February, following an assessment of the security situation in the Red Sea.

Shipping is indispensable to global trade, in large part because no other mode of transport comes close in terms of capacity and cost-effectiveness.

The world’s largest container ships have capacities exceeding 24,000 TEU – the equivalent of roughly 12,000 trucks, 2,240 cargo planes, or 360 freight trains.

Lacking genuine competition in the transport of goods in huge volumes, shipping facilitates about 90 percent of global trade.

Shipping will look “remarkably familiar” in five years from now because it is an industry driven by demand, said Punit Oza, the head of the consultancy Maritime NXT and the former executive director of the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration.

Even the most severe conflict cannot change the “physics or the economics” of seaborne trade, he said.

“Ships do not sail because shipowners want them to; they sail because consumers somewhere want grain, iron ore, gas, or televisions,” Oza told Al Jazeera.

“It is the consumers of shipping – the cargo interests, the economies, the households – who ultimately shape the industry, and their demand will endure long after the headlines fade.”

Judah Levine‏, head of research at freight booking company Freightos, said container shipping in the future is likely to look “quite similar” to how it did before the war, with Dubai’s Port of Jebel Ali continuing to serve as the region’s main hub for both Gulf-bound goods and cargoes destined for Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas.

But Levine said diversion of cargoes to smaller hubs – such as the UAE’s Port of Fujairah and Khor Fakkan Port, and Port Sultan Qaboos in Oman – during the war offers a preview of the contingencies shipping firms are likely to deploy in future crises.

“All of a sudden, they were handling much larger volumes, and then creating these land bridges, usually to go on to Jebel Ali,” Levine told Al Jazeera.

“Containers find a way,” Levine said.

“It’s kind of like water. They’ll trickle, you know, to where they need to go by other paths.”

Another lasting impact of the war could be greater international cooperation on maritime security and safety.

The International Maritime Organization, the UN body responsible for shipping and seafarers, has listed the protection of shipping lanes as one of its top agenda items for discussion at its biannual meeting taking place from Monday to Friday.

“Seafarers have tragically lost their lives in connection with this conflict, and the impact has been felt well beyond the region, with real consequences for global trade, energy and food security,” IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez said in opening remarks to the session on Monday.

Ruth Banomyong, a professor of logistics and supply chain management at Thammasat Business School in Bangkok, Thailand, said he expects to see international coordination to strengthen trade routes that integrate both land and sea even as shipping networks remain “largely the same”.

“This means ensuring that maritime transport, ports, inland logistics, customs procedures and alternative land transport options work together as an integrated system when disruptions occur,” Banomyong told Al Jazeera.

“Maritime freedom is no longer just about freedom of navigation. It is about ensuring the continuity of global trade.

“The long-term lesson is not to replace the Strait of Hormuz, but to reduce overdependence on any single transport corridor,” Banomyong added.

Oza, the head of Maritime NXT, said the ad hoc naval coalitions deployed to ensure freedom of navigation during times of conflict could ultimately be succeeded by a multilateral security framework with “regional ownership rather than purely external enforcement”.

“Freedom of navigation is too important to be left to improvisation,” Oza said.

“If there is one consistent lesson from shipping’s long history, it is that human ingenuity always finds a way – pipelines get built, reserves get repositioned, technologies emerge, and trade, like water, finds its path. It will do so again,” Oza added.

“The innovations that follow this war will be a tribute to human resilience; the tragedy is that it took a war to summon them.”

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

Iran’s TV claims the tanker ignored warnings, but no direct responsibility for the attack has been declared.

A tanker travelling off the coast of Oman in the Strait of Hormuz has caught fire after being struck by a projectile, according to the United Kingdom’s military.

The attack early on Tuesday was the latest targeting a vessel moving through the Gulf’s critical waterway, through which a fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas passed before the US-Israel war on Iran began in late February.

Iranian television said the liquefied natural gas tanker came under attack after ignoring warnings, but Tehran did not directly claim the assault.

Tehran has repeatedly declared that only its approved route through the Strait of Hormuz is safe, and it is suspected of attacking other ships that have used another route close to the Omani shore.

The UK Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) centre said the tanker had been hit near Limah, Oman, in the strait. The projectile hit the port side of the vessel while it was trying to travel south out of the strait towards the Gulf of Oman, the UKMTO said.

Talks between Iran and the United States on a permanent end to the war appear to be on hold until after the burial of Iran’s former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed at the beginning of the US-Israel war on Iran on February 28.

Authorities flew Khamenei’s body to the Shia seminary city of Qom overnight, where mourners honoured him on Tuesday.

In Fox News interview, Israeli prime minister lauds US alliance and argues that Ankara should not receive F-35 jets.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says his ties with US President Donald Trump are “fine”, dismissing reports of rifts between the two leaders over the ceasefire with Iran and Israel’s attacks in Lebanon.

In an interview with Fox News on Monday, Netanyahu heaped praise on the United States and Trump.

“America has been a tremendous force for good, and without America, there won’t be any democracy in the world, and there won’t be any freedom in the world,” he said.

The Israeli prime minister added that he and Trump see eye to eye on “just about everything”.

His comments come amid criticism by some members of the Israeli cabinet of the memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran that calls for a regional ceasefire, including in Lebanon.

Israel has refused to withdraw from Lebanon, insisting that it has the right to bomb the country at any time to respond to “threats”. An Israeli strike in southern Lebanon on Monday killed four civilians, including a teacher.

Netanyahu said there can be differences between the US and Israel, but the two countries are “model allies”.

“My relationship with the president is fine, and we have a way of ironing out our differences as allies who respect each other,” he said.

The prime minister confirmed he will soon visit the US again, but said no date has been set for the trip.

Asked about his agenda during the visit, Netanyahu took aim at Turkiye, saying that he will lobby against the transfer of F-35 jets to Ankara.

“I don’t think they should be given F-35s or the engines for their fighter jets because that’ll upset the power balance in the Middle East, which is ultimately guaranteed by Israeli air superiority, and also by, I think, by America’s posture in the Middle East,” he said.

Turkiye, a NATO ally of the US, has been an outspoken critic of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

Trump is set to visit Ankara later this week for a NATO summit.

Netanyahu attempted to draw a contrast between Israel and Turkiye.

“They didn’t lift a finger to help you in Iran. We did,” he told Fox News, a conservative US media network mostly watched by Trump voters. “We’re the model ally that fought next to your great soldiers.”

Netanyahu has called for the US to attack Iran for decades, leading to the US-Israel war on Iran that broke out on February 28, which proved to be overwhelmingly unpopular with American voters.

Some Israeli commentators and politicians have been escalating rhetoric against Turkiye, suggesting that the country is the next regional rival and target after Iran.

Turkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned on Saturday against Israel’s efforts to undermine the US-Iran agreement.

“We are closely following the Israeli administration’s attempts to dynamite the deal,” he said. “The current war-addicted Israeli government must not be allowed to drown our geography in the smell of gunpowder and blood again.”

Millions of people have attended funeral prayers in Tehran for Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who was killed in a joint US-Israeli strike on February 28. Aerial video reveals the scale of the crowd.

Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and members of his family were killed in a joint US-Israeli air strike in February.

Iran has marked the second day of funeral processions for its late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Masses of supporters came to view his body despite a sweltering heatwave, with water misters installed at Tehran’s Grand Mosalla Hall and volunteers distributing cold drinks to mourners.

The Israel-Lebanon framework agreement “threatens to betray the victims of war crimes” in Lebanon, according to six prominent human rights and media freedom organisations.

In a joint statement released on Friday by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Lebanese Center for Human Rights (CLDH), Legal Agenda, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and the Union of Journalists in Lebanon, they warned that parts of the agreement “appear to be aimed at preventing victims of serious international crimes from seeking justice before international forums”.

The organisations pointed out that clauses 3 and 13 of the agreement, brokered by and signed in the United States on June 26, were particularly concerning as they would “prevent Lebanon and Israel from having recourse to international courts, including the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice”.

The six organisations warned that “Clause 3 further violates international law and the prohibition of forced displacement, conditioning the return of residents to specified zones along the border, currently occupied by Israel, to the ‘successful disarmament of non-state armed groups and dismantlement of their infrastructure”.

“Under international humanitarian law, people must be allowed to return once hostilities have ended or the reasons for their displacement cease to exist,” their joint statement said.

The organisations said that Clause 13 was particularly concerning as it prevents civilians from “actions in international political or legal fora [forums]”. This comes after “months of hostilities resulting in immense civilian harm, including as a result of war crimes, violations of international humanitarian law, and gross human rights abuses”.

Many in Lebanon have protested and criticised the government for signing the agreement with Israel.

Many critics of the framework deal, which does not force the Israeli army to withdraw from the areas it occupies, are people most impacted by the war, which has killed at least 4,300 people, injured over 12,000 and forced hundreds of thousands from their homes since early March.

The six organisations said the US-brokered agreement appears to “contradict the countries’ international legal obligations to pursue accountability for serious international crimes committed on their territories,” although it “does not appear to commit Israel to halt any initiatives in international forums against Hezbollah”.

“Victims of war crimes and other violations deserve justice,” said Agnes Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International. “Any agreement that fails to center their rights to justice, accountability and reparations will falter underneath the very impunity it builds.”

Ghida Frangieh, head of litigation at Legal Agenda, added: “Accountability and respect for international law are not bargaining chips. They are legal obligations. International law is clear: States cannot waive or negotiate away their obligation to investigate and prosecute the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. Nor can states extinguish individual rights to truth, justice and reparation”.

But Lebanon’s President said on Friday that the framework deal with Israel “does not legitimise the continued Israeli occupation of Lebanon”, but instead empowers the Lebanese army to extend its authority across the country’s territory.

Joseph Aoun made the remarks during a meeting with a delegation from the Association of Lebanese Universities, the Lebanese Order of Physicians and the Lebanese Maronite Order, according to a statement from the presidency.

“Our sovereign decision to separate our track from the Iranian-US track is a problem for some who have become accustomed to being under guardianship that controls us, decides for us and negotiates on our behalf,” Aoun said, adding that the Lebanese army will “fully assume its responsibilities in achieving security and stability in the south after the withdrawal of Israeli forces”.

Meanwhile, with a “ceasefire” in Lebanon agreed on June 21 as part of a deal between Iran and the US, and the Israel-Lebanon framework agreement signed five days later, many displaced Lebanese have been returning to their homes in southern Lebanon.

In a report on Thursday, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) said 646,107 IDPs (internally displaced persons) have begun returning to their communities, while about 500,000 others remain displaced, based on data collected with local authorities since June 22.

Lebanese authorities said they were working to remove informal encampments in and around capital Beirut and to reduce the number of official shelters.

However, many people in southern Lebanon said they have nowhere to return to, as dozens of towns and villages near the border have been destroyed by Israeli forces.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the military “will not leave” southern Lebanon as long as Hezbollah remains a “threat”. Hezbollah has rejected the deal with Israel as “null and void”, saying any attempt to link an Israeli withdrawal to its disarmament crossed “all red lines”.

Military command issues threat a day after Qatari mediators hailed ‘positive progress’ in indirect US-Iranian talks.

Iran’s military command has threatened ships that attempt to cross the Strait of Hormuz using unapproved routes with a “forceful response,” casting new doubt over trade flows in the critical conduit for global energy supplies.

Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters issued the threat on Thursday, a day after Qatari mediators hailed indirect negotiations between US and Iranian officials as making “positive progress” towards a peace deal.

“Any failure to comply with and depart from the designated route or disregard for the navigation protocols of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Strait of Hormuz will be met with an immediate and forceful response from the armed forces, and will endanger the security of the offending vessels,” the military command said in a statement carried by the country’s semi-official Tasnim news agency.

While Tehran did not specify what prompted the warning, it came after US Central Command (CENTCOM) on Wednesday said it had presided over a security dialogue in Bahrain during which regional leaders expressed their commitment to the “free flow of commerce” in the strait.

Iranian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Kazem Gharibabadi hit out at CENTCOM’s statement on Thursday, saying the forum “cannot establish legal order and security for the Persian Gulf”.

“The region’s security will be ensured through the end of interventions and the US withdrawal from the area, respect for countries’ sovereignty, and acceptance of new geopolitical realities – not under the military umbrella of America,” Gharibabadi said in a post on X.

The Strait of Hormuz, which facilitated about one-fifth of the global trade in oil and liquefied natural gas before the US-Israel war on Iran began in late February, has become a major sticking point in Washington and Tehran’s talks aimed at turning their fragile ceasefire into a lasting peace.

While Iran agreed to make its “best efforts” to arrange the safe passage of ships in the strait in the memorandum of understanding it signed with the US on June 17, Tehran has repeatedly threatened to attack ships that do not use its preferred route close to the Iranian shoreline.

At least 49 attacks on commercial vessels have been recorded in the strait since the start of the war on February 28, according to MarineTraffic.

Most of those incidents, including drone attacks on a Singapore-flagged cargo ship and Panama-flagged merchant vessel on Thursday and Saturday, respectively, have been blamed on Tehran.

While transits through the waterway have risen since US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed their MoU on June 17, they remain far below the roughly 130 daily crossings that took place before the conflict.

At least 45 vessels crossed the strait on Wednesday, up from 34 on Tuesday, according to MarineTraffic data.

After dropping to pre-war levels on Thursday on reports of productive talks in Doha, oil prices largely held steady as markets opened in Asia on Friday.

Brent futures for August delivery stood at $72.07 per barrel as of 02:30 GMT, after dropping below $71 for the first time since the war the previous day.

An estimated 10 million mourners attended Iran’s first Supreme Leader’s funeral in 1989, making it one of the world’s largest gatherings. As Iran prepares for the funeral of Khamenei, it’s expecting even bigger numbers.

Maritime monitoring service TankerTrackers.com said on Thursday that a ship which Iranian media reported had run aground in the Strait of Hormuz has in fact been stuck in the same spot since March and is part of an operation managed by the notorious Iranian oil magnate Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani.

Here is what we know about Shamkhani, whom the US and EU allege is a central figure in Iranian and Russian shadow fleet operations, generating billions of dollars of oil revenues for both, and what happened to his ship in the Hormuz strait.

What do we know about the stranded ship?

On Thursday, TankerTrackers.com reported that the ship that Iranian media said had run aground in the Strait of Hormuz after using a “US-suggested route” has actually been stuck in the same spot since March.

It identified the vessel as the Arista, and reported that while it is Comoros-flagged, it is in fact part of an operation managed by the sanctioned Iranian oil magnate Shamkhani.

Who is Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani and what are the allegations against him?

Shamkhani is an Iranian oil shipping magnate who has multiple Western sanctions imposed on him. He is the son of the late Ali Shamkhani, a senior political adviser to Iran’s former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Ali Shamkhani led the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) for a decade until 2023, making him the second-longest-serving security chief since 1979 after former President Hassan Rouhani, who was SNSC secretary for nearly 16 years.

He was reportedly killed in the first Israeli-US strikes on Tehran on February 28 , which triggered the war with Iran and also killed Khamenei, whose funeral begins tomorrow.

In March, the Sarajevo-based Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) reported that following an investigation, Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani and his brother had used aliases and Caribbean “golden passports” to amass a $29m million property portfolio in Dubai.

The US Treasury, which has sanctioned the Shamkhani shipping empire, says it is part of a massive Iranian and Russian oil smuggling ring and that the Comoros‑flagged Arista aground in Hormuz is part of that network.

How does Shamkhani’s oil shipping operation work?

According to the US Treasury, the Shamkhani network makes use of “front” companies to buy Iranian and Russian oil for which it falsifies shipping documents. It switches the oil between vessels frequently via its shipping operations and sells the oil on to buyers who pay for it via their own front companies to obscure the flow of money.

Additional profits are funnelled through hedge funds and other money-laundering operations, the US Treasury alleges.

It said Shamkhani relies on a mix of crude oil, oil product and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) tankers to generate billions of dollars for the Iranian and Russian regimes.

According to the European Commission, Shamkhani “uses the company Milavous Group Ltd to blend crude oil with various petroleum products from Russia and to rebrand for exporting purposes, thereby concealing their origin”.

Shamkhani is not known to have responded publicly to these allegations.

What sanctions have been imposed on Shamkhani?

Shamkhani was first sanctioned by the US last July, amid a large number of Iran-related sanctions. In April, the US Treasury Department announced additional sanctions on Shamkhani’s network.

“Treasury is moving aggressively with Economic Fury by targeting regime elites like the Shamkhani family that attempt to profit at the expense of the Iranian people,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said.

A statement from the US Treasury added that Shamkhani “heads a multi-billion dollar Iranian and Russian petroleum sales empire that enriches a family connected to the highest echelons of the Iranian regime at the expense of the Iranian people”.

The European Union sanctions tracker website says Shamkhani is also subject to EU sanctions, describing him as “a businessperson active in the Russian oil trade and a central player in Russia’s so-called ‘shadow fleet’.”

Russia’s shadow fleet is a network of hundreds of ageing, poorly regulated oil tankers that Russia uses to export crude and fuel while evading Western sanctions imposed after its invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

An August last year, the UK government also announced sanctions against Shamkhani including an asset freeze, director disqualification and travel ban. Minister for the Middle East Hamish Falconer said: “The UK is announcing sanctions against those who operate on behalf of Iran, fuelling its attempts to undermine stability in the Middle East and global security.

“Iran’s reliance on revenues from trading networks and connected organisations enables it to carry out its destabilising activities, including supporting proxies and partners across the region and facilitating state threats on UK soil.”

Brent falls below $71 a barrel amid reports of progress in talks to end the war.

Oil prices have fallen to levels not seen since the start of the US-Israel war on Iran amid rising hopes for a breakthrough in negotiations aimed at sealing a permanent peace deal.

Brent crude fell more than 1 percent on Thursday to below $71 a barrel, returning the international benchmark to pre-war prices.

Brent futures for August delivery stood at $70.82 per barrel as of 04:30 GMT, lower than at any point since February 27.

Following the latest drop, Brent prices are down more than 38 percent from their post-war peak of more than $126 a barrel on April 30.

The slide came after Qatar, a key mediator between Washington and Tehran, said that US and Iranian officials had made “positive progress” in indirect talks aimed at resolving issues related to their memorandum of understanding (MoU) on ending the war.

US President Donald Trump also cast a positive light on the talks on Wednesday, saying the “denuclearisation of Iran is moving along well”.

Vandana Hari, the founder of the Singapore-based oil market analysis provider Vanda Insights, said a steady uptick in oil flows out of the Gulf and “cautiously optimistic geopolitical sentiment” had driven prices lower.

“Several key issues in the MoU remain unresolved, but the two sides appear to have backed off confrontation on the issue of the interim Hormuz transit regime, at least for the time being,” Hari told Al Jazeera.

“I expect crude to continue grinding lower until the backlog of stranded barrels has cleared, and prices could even swing into oversold territory,” she said.

“The real test of normalisation of Persian Gulf supply will come after that, necessitating fresh supply-demand balance recalibration.”

Shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, a conduit for one-fifth of the global trade in oil and liquefied natural gas in peacetime, has shown tentative signs of recovery in recent days after a sharp decline following attacks on two commercial vessels in the waterway on Thursday and Saturday.

At least 40 vessels transited the strait on Tuesday, according to data from MarineTraffic, up from 27 crossings on Monday and 22 on Sunday.

Maritime traffic nonetheless remains far below its pre-war level of roughly 130 daily crossings amid persistent concerns about safety in the waterway.

While Iran agreed to make its “best efforts” to arrange the safe passage of vessels in the MoU it signed with the US on June 17, Tehran has since repeatedly claimed the sole right to control movement through the strait.

At least 49 attacks on commercial vessels have been recorded in the strait since the start of the war, according to MarineTraffic, most of which were claimed by Tehran or blamed on its forces.

US president says a meeting with Iran will take place in Doha today, but Tehran says there are no plans for talks in the coming days.

US president says talks will take place on Tuesday, but Tehran has not confirmed the negotiations in Doha.

President Donald Trump says a meeting will take place between Iran and the United States in Qatar on Tuesday, suggesting that diplomacy is still on track despite the recent military skirmishes in the Gulf.

Trump’s announcement on Monday came less than two hours after a top Iranian official said that technical talks over the memorandum of understanding (MoU) between Washington and Tehran “are not planned” for this week.

“IRAN HAS REQUESTED A MEETING. IT WILL TAKE PLACE TOMORROW IN DOHA!” Trump wrote in a social media post.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said the meeting would take place after conditions are met, without providing details.

“Although consultations with Qatar, including regarding the follow-up of the implementation of the other party’s commitments, are ongoing as usual, the news from some media outlets that technical talks of the working groups will be held in Doha cannot be confirmed,” Gharibabadi told Tasnim news agency.

The two statements from Washington and Tehran appear to contradict each other, but it is possible that a breakthrough finalising the meeting occurred after Gharibabadi’s comment.

Iran, however, has not confirmed that talks have been scheduled.

White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, will lead the US negotiating team in Doha.

“Special Envoy Witkoff and Jared Kushner will be flying to Doha for high-level meetings this week as we continue to discuss the memorandum of understanding,” she told Fox News.

Leavitt added that technical talks will take place on the sidelines of the high-level negotiations.

The US and Iran reached a deal to end the war earlier this month, kicking off a 60-day period of negotiations over the thorniest issues in the relationship – Tehran’s nuclear programme.

But the deal has been tested by Israel’s continuing attacks in Lebanon and Iran’s assertion of control over the Strait of Hormuz.

The first sentence of the 14-point MoU calls for a full ceasefire in Lebanon, “ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty” of the country.

But the US has sponsored a separate agreement between the Lebanese government and Israel that conditions Israeli withdrawal on the disarmament of Hezbollah across the country.

Hormuz has been another sticking point. Iran has rejected routes through the strait outside of its control and fired at ships passing through lanes not designated by Tehran.

The US has struck Iranian positions near the waterway, to which Iran responded with missile and drone attacks against American bases in Bahrain and Kuwait.

But diplomatic and de-escalation efforts appear to continue, despite the trading of attacks.

“As far as we’re concerned, we’re holding up our end of the ceasefire,” Leavitt said on Monday, but she warned that “violence will be met with violence” if Iran attacks commercial ships or US interests.

On Monday, Trump hailed the drop in oil prices that followed the deal, which lifted Tehran’s blockade on Hormuz and eased US sanctions on Iran’s energy products.

“GAS PRICES COMING DOWN, FAST! REPORT ANY ABUSES AT RETAIL LEVEL,” the US president wrote on his Truth Social platform.

The average price of one gallon (3.8 litres) of gasoline in the US has dropped to $3.86, down from a peak of $4.56 in May. It was less than $3 before the war.

Brent crude edges up as tit-for-tat strikes imperial return to normality in key waterway.

Oil prices have climbed following the latest flare-up in hostilities between the United States and Iran.

Brent crude, the primary international benchmark, rose about 0.9 percent on Monday after tit-for-tat US and Iranian strikes over the weekend renewed doubts about a return to normal shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

Brent futures for August delivery stood at $73.21 a barrel as of 03:30 GMT, 127 cents higher than the day before the US and Israel launched their war on Iran on February 28.

“Brent’s partial rebound this morning reflects a market that had perhaps run too quickly on ceasefire optimism,” Fabien Yip, a market analyst at IG in Sydney, Australia, told Al Jazeera.

“Oil had nearly unwound its entire war premium, despite an MoU with no enforcement details and ongoing strikes. Thursday’s attack on a commercial vessel was a reality check, and this weekend’s tit-for-tat exchanges have compounded that,” Yip said.

Asian stock markets were mixed on Monday morning, with losses in Tokyo and Seoul and gains in Hong Kong and Taipei.

Japan’s benchmark Nikkei 225 was 0.7 percent lower, while South Korea’s Kospi was down 1.9 percent.

Japanese and Korean stocks tied to the AI boom saw some of the biggest losses amid heated debate about whether tech firms’ massive investments in the emerging technology will pay off.

Japanese tech giant SoftBank Group fell about 5 percent, while Advantest Corporation, a key maker of semiconductor testing equipment, slumped 3.7 percent.

South Korean memory chip giants Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix dropped about 5 percent and 4 percent, respectively.

Hong Kong’s benchmark Hang Seng Index and Taiwan’s Taiex both rose, gaining 2.2 percent and 1.4 percent, respectively.

“Quarter-end profit-taking is adding to the selling pressure, with investors locking in gains from what has been a remarkable run. The Kospi is up roughly 95 percent this year, and the Nikkei up 37 percent,” IG’s Yip said.

“The underlying concern, however, is whether the AI boom can continue to translate into sustained earnings growth, or whether margin pressure is arriving sooner than the market anticipated.”

US Central Command announced strikes against Iran on Friday and Saturday, citing Iranian attacks on two commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, which in peacetime serves as a conduit for about one-fifth of the global trade in oil and liquified natural gas.

Iran responded to the strikes by launching a series of missiles and drones targeting US military assets in Bahrain and Kuwait.

Washington and Tehran agreed to cease their attacks and renew their negotiations on ending the war, multiple media outlets reported late on Sunday, citing unnamed US officials.

Axios, citing an unnamed senior US official, reported that the sides would hold talks in Doha, Qatar, on Tuesday.

Iran has yet to comment on the reported agreement to cease hostilities or the planned talks.

US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed a memorandum of understanding to end the war on June 17, but the agreement has repeatedly come under strain due to flare-ups in hostilities and disagreements about the meaning of the text.

Washington and Tehran have agreed to stop attacks and renew talks in the Qatari capital, Doha, Axios reports.

Beirut, Lebanon – After the governments of Lebanon and Israel on Friday signed a United States-brokered framework agreement following months of direct negotiations, protesters took to the streets of the Lebanese capital to express their anger at the deal.

Many of the demonstrators waved flags of the Iran-backed group Hezbollah, which has been militarily confronting Israel’s ongoing invasion and occupation of large swaths of southern Lebanon.

Israel and Hezbollah have been fighting since October 2023, with varying levels of intensity, but the former has twice escalated the conflict – first in September 2024 and then nearly four months ago.

Some of the harshest critics of the framework, which does not force the Israeli army to withdraw from the areas it occupies, have been those most deeply impacted by Israel’s war, which has killed more than 4,200 people and forced hundreds of thousands from their homes since early March.

“After everything my family, my village, the south, and Dahiyeh have endured – the destruction, the displacement, the grief and the loss – it is incredibly difficult for me to accept an agreement with the same state that carried out the military actions that devastated our communities,” said Ali Zaytoun, a resident of Beirut’s southern suburbs, known as Dahiyeh.

Zaytoun, who runs a popular Instagram account called History of Dahieh, said he had been displaced multiple times due to Israeli attacks.

“Imagine someone destroys your home and your life, and then you’re expected to simply move on as if nothing happened,” said Zaytoun. “My protest is about remembering those who suffered, standing up for my community, and expressing that this agreement does not reflect the justice or respect that people who lived through this war deserve.”

A new Oslo?

The Israeli intensification on March 2 came after Hezbollah fired on Israel for the first time in more than a year following the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in a joint US-Israeli air attack on Tehran two days earlier, and as a response to more than 10,000 Israeli violations of a ceasefire reached in November 2024.

On the same day, the Lebanese government declared Hezbollah’s military activities illegal and later tried – unsuccessfully – to expel the Iranian ambassador.

Its position was that Hezbollah’s actions invited Israel’s wrath in a war fought on behalf of Iran and not the people of Lebanon.

Hezbollah, however, continued fighting Israel in southern Lebanon, where the Israeli army has established what it calls a “security zone” that goes as deep as 10km (6.2 miles) into the country.

As attacks continued, Lebanon’s government entered the United States-brokered negotiations with Israel, despite Hezbollah’s objections.

The final text of the 14-point Washington agreement states Israel has no claim to Lebanese territory and that the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) will eventually be the authority in southern Lebanon, “pending the verified disarmament of” non-state armed groups such as Hezbollah.

Proponents point to Israel recognising Lebanon’s authority over its own territory, though critics say the framework relies too heavily on the US – Israel’s main military and diplomatic backer and a signatory to the deal – to enforce it.

“The United States is unlikely to act as a neutral mediator and will almost certainly align with Israeli positions whenever disputes arise over the interpretation or implementation of the agreement,” said Karim Emile Bitar, a professor of international relations at the Saint Joseph University of Beirut.

“This creates a fundamentally asymmetric negotiating environment in which Lebanon has little leverage and few effective guarantees.”

Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem declared the agreement “null and void”, calling it “humiliating, shameful, and a surrender of sovereignty”, while Hassan Fadlallah, a Hezbollah lawmaker, warned of “internal conflict” in Lebanon.

Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri called for calm but also declared that the deal was an attempt to incite strife.

Those who backed the government said it had originally little choice but to enter direct negotiations, given its limited leverage in a war where Israel has technological superiority and unwavering US support.

Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam wrote on social media after the agreement’s signing that it “aims to achieve Israel’s withdrawal from all Lebanese territories”, while President Joseph Aoun called it “a first step” towards restoring Lebanon’s sovereignty.

Still, the final terms of the deal were criticised by many analysts.

“This framework agreement essentially mirrors the reality of the military and political balance on the ground, which is decisively tilted in Israel’s favour,” said Bitar.

Bitar said the agreement was reminiscent of the Oslo Accords, a series of US-brokered agreements signed by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel in the 1990s.

“We see a similar pattern here: Israeli negotiators seek recognition and get the other side to relinquish leverage while offering no binding timetable or reciprocal obligations,” he added.

On Saturday, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz insisted soldiers will remain in Lebanon until Hezbollah is disarmed.

US reliance

Days before the signing of the Washington framework, Iran and the US agreed on a memorandum of understanding (MoU) that aims to end the war launched by the US and Israel against Iran in late February.

The MoU declared, among other things, “the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon”, between the two countries and their allies.

Lebanon’s inclusion in the MoU was reportedly an Iranian priority, while a “deconfliction cell” was formed to bolster the supposed ceasefire in the country.

Throughout the war and the period of negotiations, Lebanon’s government has tried to separate itself from Iran – but some said it may have gone too far in the other direction.

“We are seeing the confirmation of what Hezbollah has been warning all along. Not because Hezbollah got it right, but because the Lebanese state got it so wrong,” said Lebanese writer Elia Ayoub.

“I understand the need to not depend on Iran, but what we’ve instead done is become even more dependent on the US than we’ve previously been,” added Ayoub, the founder of the podcast The Fire These Times.

“And it’s the US that has been bankrolling Israel’s genocide in Palestine and war crimes in Lebanon,” Ayoub added.

Analysts also questioned whether the government would be able to implement the deal.

“It appears that the Lebanese side has come under significant US pressure to sign an agreement that is very likely to remain little more than ink on paper, and very unlikely to be implemented in any meaningful way,” said Bitar.

Karim Safieddine, a nonresident fellow with the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, said the framework left the Lebanese government with “very little agency”.

“It’s Israel imposing a deal,” he added. “It’s very clear what this deal is. It’s just a surrender agreement.”

At the same time, some pointed to similarities to the 2024 ceasefire agreement, expressing doubt whether Israel will be incentivised to respect the framework.

“It’s one thing to sign a declaration of intent; it’s another thing to have it implemented, and I can see all kinds of problems emerging from this,” said Nicholas Blanford, a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council and author of a book on Hezbollah.

Last year, Israel repeatedly complained that LAF’s efforts to disarm Hezbollah were either too slow or ineffective. The US often sided with Israel despite diplomatic attempts from European and other officials encouraging it to support LAF.

In a call with his US counterpart, President Donald Trump, on Saturday, Aoun said Lebanon “would assume its responsibilities” in implementing the framework and expressed hope Washington would help ensure that commitments ‌are fulfilled, particularly by pressing Israel to pull out from the areas it occupies.

Point 9 of the agreement states Lebanon’s government commits to a “rigorous, performance-based program to enable the capacity of the LAF to assert full military and security control within Lebanon … to implement the disarmament of all non-state armed groups”.

This provision has some in Lebanon worried about potential confrontations between LAF and Hezbollah, but Blanford said the possibility of a large escalation is currently not likely.

“The Lebanese army and the government are unwilling to use force against Hezbollah,” he said. “Forcibly trying to disarm a group that is refusing to disarm is an act of war. And I think the Lebanese army and the Lebanese government would be extremely wary of that.”