USIran

Benchmark S&P 500 rises 1.7 percent, while tech-heavy Nasdaq jumps 3.1 percent.

US stocks have rallied on hopes that the tentative deal to end the US-Israel war on Iran will restore stability to energy supply chains roiled by months of disruption in the Strait of Hormuz.

The S&P 500 rose 1.7 percent on Monday, taking the benchmark index within touching distance of its all-time high.

The tech-focused Nasdaq Composite jumped 3.1 percent, aided by a 19.6 percent gain by SpaceX, which on Friday made the biggest market debut in history and minted the world’s first trillionaire in Elon Musk.

The blue-chip Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 0.9 percent, closing at a record high.

Brent crude futures, the primary benchmark for global oil prices, fell nearly 5 percent to just above $83 a barrel, the lowest price since the first week of the conflict.

Asian stock markets were largely flat on Monday morning, after surging the previous day on the back of US President Donald Trump’s announcement of his deal with Tehran.

As of 01:30 GMT, Japan’s benchmark Nikkei 225 was 0.01 percent lower, while South Korea’s Kospi, the best-performing major index this year, was down 0.06 percent.

In Taiwan, the TAIEX was up 0.2 percent.

Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index was down 0.07 percent.

Jay Goldberg, a senior analyst for tech-related equities at the Chicago-based Seaport Research Partners, said the announcement of the US-Iran deal had tilted investors’ risk balancing act towards buying into the market.

“To oversimplify, the debate has been: AI spending is strong, but there’s a war going on,” Goldberg told Al Jazeera.

“The war is over, it seems, so that side of the argument falls away. Investors are now feeling better about taking on more risk,” Goldberg said.

While Washington and Tehran’s framework has raised hopes for a return to stability in global energy markets, it is expected to take months before energy flows fully return to normal, due to the massive backlog of vessels around the Strait of Hormuz and the need to ensure the waterway is safe from Iranian naval mines.

According to the International Shipping Chamber, about 500 ships are still waiting to pass through the strait, which normally carries about one-fifth of global supplies of oil and liquefied natural gas.

The preliminary deal to end US-Israel war on Iran has sent oil prices tumbling to a three-month low amid hopes that the Strait of Hormuz will reopen.

But it could be months before American consumers see major relief at the petrol pump.

The closure of the strategic chokepoint disrupted global energy markets for more than three months, cutting off a major shipping route through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas normally passes.

On Sunday, US President Donald Trump said prices would “drop like a rock” once the strait reopens, a claim he has made multiple times in the past few weeks.

However, experts caution that a major decline in prices is unlikely to happen as quickly as Trump suggests.

While Asian markets rely more heavily on oil shipped through the Strait of Hormuz than North American markets, tighter supply and steady demand have pushed prices higher worldwide.

On Monday, petrol prices in the US remained above $4 per gallon (3.78 litres), averaging $4.06 nationwide, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA). This was a dip from a high in early May of $4.48 per gallon.

By comparison, prices stood at $2.98 per gallon on February 28, when the US and Israel first struck Iran, triggering a ripple effect across global energy markets.

Energy prices have risen sharply in the US in recent months, increasing 7.7 percent over the last two months alone, and are up 40 percent from a year ago, according to last week’s inflation report from the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics,

However, prices are beginning to fall, a dip that began as Washington and Tehran entered negotiations.

“The potential deal that the US and Iran agreed to over the weekend certainly could pave the way for even lower prices… in the next two to three days by what we saw over the weekend,” Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, which tracks petrol prices, told Al Jazeera.

But De Haan expects a plateau and says that consumers may not see gas prices at pre-war levels until 2027, even if the ceasefire holds.

“It may take many months, if not beyond a year, for global oil inventories to recover to pre-war levels,” De Haan said.

Amid strains on the supply chain, producers will also need time to ramp up output, while port bottlenecks and heightened demand during the busy summer travel season could delay any substantial relief for everyday consumers.

“There are some mitigating factors that are going to slow the decline in prices. There are a lot of organisations and companies that have to re-up their stockpiles [like the US’s strategic petroleum reserve] and fulfil contracts that have been on hold for the last few months,” John Deal, managing director of capital markets at the Post Oak Group investment bank, said.

Supply chain strains

Fixing kinks in the supply chain takes time.

Oil production slumped amid the war. More than 14 million barrels per day, or 14 percent of the world’s demand, has been shut, according to the International Energy Agency.

Deal said it would take time to get oil production back online.

“My sense is that there’s going to be sustained high demand through the summertime, and we probably won’t get back to pre-war levels [on petrol prices] until after the summer, maybe September or October,” Deal said.

Mark Jones, a professor of political science at Rice University, said that producers might be reluctant to bring full operations back online until they can see the ceasefire hold.

The agreement opening the blockade is for a 60-day negotiation period between the two countries.

“Many [producers] may be reluctant to restart production until they are convinced that the peace will hold, because the last thing they want to do is carry out the costly effort to restart production only to see the conflict revived and then have to shut it down once again,” Jones told Al Jazeera.

Getting production back online is also dependent on the impact individual producers have faced throughout the war.

Refineries that were shut as a precaution could reach as much as 95 percent capacity within 40-60 days, Vitol Bahrain’s head of research, Bader Nooruddin, told the Reuters news agency. Those damaged in the fighting could take much longer.

But bottlenecks at ports could be the biggest hurdle, according to Deal.

“There’s a lag time with shipping capacity. Shipping capacity is perhaps the most significant constraint,” Deal said.

This is because there are more than 500 ships still awaiting passage, according to shipping data from Kpler.

With the ships headed all over the world, it will take them weeks to reach their destinations, dock, and unload at the ports.

That also means a wave of empty ships is waiting in limbo for spots at ports to load cargo and ramp back up to normal operations.

Major shipping giants are in a holding pattern.

Norway’s Wallenius Wilhelmsen and Denmark’s Maersk both told Reuters that they have not changed their Middle East operations in the wake of the announcement.

During the war, there was limited passage through the Strait of Hormuz, with an average of 10 ships a day passing through, compared with 135 that normally transit the waterway, according to an analysis by Bloomberg.

“Tankers take months to reach their final destination and then come back again. So the ability to replenish the stocks is going to take until, I think, the early fall, just from a shipping perspective, to get back to the status quo that was in place before the conflict started,” Jones said, referring to the preferred term for the months of September through November in North America.

At the same time, US strategic reserves are running low, at their lowest levels since 1983. Reserves have tumbled by 18 percent since the war began.

“Demand might keep prices high through the summer as strategic reserves get refilled,” Deal added.

Jet fuel demand will also put pressure on consumers amid the normally busy JuneAugust travel season in the US.

“The war has really affected airlines and their ability to schedule and anticipate how the summer months are going to go,” Deal added.

In April, United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby said that airfares for the carrier may have to jump as much as 20 percent on higher fuel prices.

Grocery woes

The increase in prices is also hitting food budgets.

The most recent consumer price index report showed US inflation ticked up by 4.2 percent compared with this time last year. While inflationary pressures were mostly driven by fuel prices, the impact has still been felt at the grocery store.

Almost half of the world’s urea, which is used in fertiliser, is produced in the Gulf region and passes through the Strait of Hormuz. For American farmers, that means access to fertilisers for the next crop season is more expensive.

Tomato prices, already driven up by Trump’s tariffs on Mexico, have surged 40 percent in the last year amid rising transportation costs.

Lettuce prices rose by more than 16 percent in May, and the price of ground beef increased by about 12 percent compared with this time last year.

Jones warned that food prices may not go down.

“Many retailers, wholesalers, and producers will keep them where they are or only reduce them if forced to from a sales perspective. Unlike petrol, which tends to ebb and flow with the price of oil, prices for many other goods that have been adversely affected by all of this are much less likely to return to where they were prior to the start of the conflict,” Jones said.

“For groceries, for manufacturing goods, for anything that has gone up during the conflict, the price that is there now often becomes the new baseline from which prices move in the future.”

This can be compared with the COVID-19 pandemic period. When the pandemic stalled supply chains, producers increased prices. A 2024 investigation by the Federal Trade Commission found that retail grocers kept prices elevated after supply chain constraints brought on by the pandemic had eased.

“Some in the grocery retail industry seem to have used rising costs as an opportunity to further raise prices to increase their profits,” the report said.

The announcement of a preliminary US-Iran agreement has generated cautious optimism in Lebanon, where months of conflict have displaced large portions of the population and devastated communities across the south.

While the framework reportedly calls for the immediate cessation of military operations, Lebanese authorities are warning residents against assuming that conditions are safe enough for a rapid return.

The caution reflects uncertainty over how the agreement will be implemented and whether all parties will abide by its terms.

Adding to those concerns, Israel has made clear that it does not consider itself bound by the agreement and intends to maintain security zones in southern Lebanon.

Lebanon became one of the principal battlegrounds of the wider regional conflict after Hezbollah opened a front against Israel in support of Iran following the outbreak of hostilities.

The resulting escalation led to extensive Israeli military operations across southern Lebanon, causing widespread destruction and one of the largest displacement crises in the country’s recent history.

Entire communities were uprooted as residents fled bombardment and military activity.

Iran consistently pushed for any agreement with Washington to include provisions addressing Lebanon, viewing the conflict there as inseparable from broader regional tensions.

The inclusion of Lebanon in the framework agreement therefore represents a significant diplomatic concession and a central element of Tehran’s negotiating position.

Why This Matters

Lebanon has become one of the clearest examples of how regional conflicts can produce devastating humanitarian consequences.

The conflict has:

• Displaced more than a million people.
• Damaged homes, infrastructure, and businesses.
• Increased pressure on Lebanon’s already fragile economy.
• Deepened political and social instability.

A durable ceasefire could allow reconstruction efforts to begin and reduce the risk of further regional escalation.

However, the humanitarian benefits will depend on security conditions improving on the ground rather than merely on diplomatic declarations.

The Challenge of Returning Home

For displaced families, peace announcements do not automatically translate into confidence.

Many residents remain uncertain about:

• Whether military operations have truly ended.
• The presence of Israeli forces in southern areas.
• The condition of homes and infrastructure.
• Future security guarantees.

The hesitation expressed by displaced residents reflects a broader reality in conflict zones: trust often takes much longer to rebuild than physical infrastructure.

Even if active fighting stops, communities may remain reluctant to return until they believe the risk of renewed conflict has genuinely diminished.

Israel’s Position Complicates the Picture

A major obstacle to immediate normalization is Israel’s position.

Israeli officials have indicated they will continue maintaining security zones and reserve the right to conduct operations they deem necessary for national security.

This creates ambiguity regarding implementation of the broader agreement.

While the US-Iran framework may establish a diplomatic foundation for reducing violence, the practical situation on the ground will depend on decisions made by actors who were not direct participants in the negotiations.

This distinction could prove crucial in determining whether the agreement produces lasting stability.

A Test of Regional Diplomacy

The inclusion of Lebanon in the agreement demonstrates how interconnected Middle Eastern conflicts have become.

The war was never confined solely to the United States and Iran. It involved multiple regional actors, proxy groups, and overlapping security concerns.

As a result, success will be measured not only by whether Washington and Tehran uphold their commitments but also by whether the agreement influences behavior across the broader region.

Lebanon is likely to become one of the first and most visible tests of that process.

Key Stakeholders

• Lebanon and its government institutions
• Displaced Lebanese civilians
• Israel and its military leadership
• Hezbollah
• Iran
• The United States
• Regional mediators including Pakistan
• Humanitarian organizations operating in Lebanon

What to Watch Next

• Whether military activity in southern Lebanon decreases in the coming days.
• Israeli decisions regarding security zones.
• Hezbollah’s official response to the agreement.
• The pace of civilian returns to southern communities.
• International support for reconstruction and humanitarian assistance.
• Broader negotiations during the 60-day ceasefire period.

The agreement creates an opportunity for Lebanon to move toward greater stability after months of destruction and displacement.

If implemented successfully, reduced hostilities could pave the way for reconstruction, humanitarian relief, and the gradual return of displaced populations.

Yet significant uncertainty remains. Security concerns, damaged infrastructure, and competing interpretations of the agreement could slow progress and complicate efforts to restore normalcy.

For many Lebanese families, the end of active conflict would represent only the beginning of a much longer recovery process.

Analysis

The most revealing aspect of Lebanon’s reaction is the disconnect between diplomacy and reality.

International leaders may celebrate ceasefires and framework agreements, but people living through conflict judge peace by different standards. They look not at official statements but at troop movements, security conditions, and whether it is safe to return home.

That gap is already visible in southern Lebanon. While diplomats describe the agreement as a breakthrough, local authorities are warning residents against rushing back. Israel’s decision to maintain security zones further reinforces uncertainty about how quickly conditions can normalize.

This highlights a recurring challenge in conflict resolution. Agreements can stop wars on paper, but rebuilding trust often takes far longer than negotiating a ceasefire.

Lebanon’s experience may therefore become a key measure of whether the US-Iran agreement delivers meaningful change beyond diplomatic symbolism. If displaced communities can safely return, reconstruction begins, and violence declines, the agreement will gain credibility. If insecurity persists despite the deal, questions will quickly emerge about its effectiveness.

Ultimately, Lebanon represents the human dimension of the broader regional settlement. The success of the agreement will not be judged solely by geopolitical outcomes or energy markets but by whether ordinary people feel secure enough to rebuild their lives after months of war.

With information from Reuters.

The preliminary memorandum represents the first formal framework outlining how Washington and Tehran intend to move from military confrontation toward diplomacy.

While many details remain unpublished, statements from U.S., Iranian and Pakistani officials provide a broad outline of the deal’s structure.

Rather than resolving every dispute immediately, the agreement establishes a phased process aimed at reducing tensions first and addressing more difficult issues later.

The approach reflects the reality that both sides were able to reach consensus on ending hostilities more easily than on the underlying disputes that fueled the conflict.

Phase One: Ending the Fighting

The first stage focuses on immediate de-escalation.

According to mediator Pakistan, both sides have agreed to permanently halt military operations across all fronts.

The formal memorandum is expected to be signed in Switzerland, after which implementation would begin.

The objective of this phase is straightforward: stop active hostilities, reduce the risk of escalation, and create space for broader negotiations.

This represents the most immediate achievement of the agreement and is likely the reason markets reacted positively.

Reopening the Strait of Hormuz

The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz is arguably the agreement’s most significant economic provision.

The waterway serves as one of the world’s most important energy transit routes and has been at the center of global concerns throughout the conflict.

Both sides indicate that commercial shipping will resume following the signing of the memorandum.

The restoration of maritime traffic could:

• Increase global oil supply.
• Reduce shipping disruptions.
• Ease pressure on energy prices.
• Lower inflation risks for major economies.

However, questions remain over how the route will be governed.

Iran has suggested it will coordinate management of traffic with Oman, potentially giving Tehran a more formal role in overseeing one of the world’s most strategically important waterways.

That issue could become a future source of diplomatic friction.

The Nuclear Issue Has Been Deferred

The most controversial subject in the negotiations remains unresolved.

Rather than settling the nuclear dispute immediately, both sides appear to have agreed to address it during a 60-day negotiation period.

According to Iranian officials, Tehran would freeze nuclear activities during that time by halting additional enrichment and refraining from expanding facilities.

The long-term future of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure remains unclear.

Washington continues to emphasize inspections and preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Tehran continues to insist that its nuclear program is peaceful and seeks recognition of its right to maintain civilian nuclear activities.

These competing positions are likely to dominate the next phase of talks.

Sanctions Relief Could Shape the Success of the Deal

Economic issues may ultimately prove as difficult as nuclear negotiations.

Iran expects meaningful sanctions relief as part of any final settlement.

Iranian officials have spoken about:

• Temporary waivers on oil sanctions.
• The release of frozen assets.
• Financial support mechanisms.
• A pathway toward lifting U.S. and international sanctions.

The Trump administration has signaled a more cautious approach.

Washington has indicated that sanctions relief will depend on Iranian compliance and future negotiations rather than automatic implementation.

This difference highlights one of the central tensions in the agreement: each side expects benefits on different timelines.

Lebanon Remains a Flashpoint

The agreement’s treatment of Lebanon illustrates how regional conflicts have become intertwined.

Iran views a ceasefire in Lebanon as a critical component of the broader settlement.

Lebanese political leaders have welcomed the inclusion of Lebanon in the framework.

Israel, however, has made clear that it does not consider itself bound by all aspects of the agreement and intends to maintain military positions in areas it views as strategically important.

This creates uncertainty about whether the Lebanon component can be implemented as envisioned.

The issue could quickly become one of the first tests of the agreement’s durability.

Why This Matters

The memorandum matters because it shifts the conflict from the battlefield to the negotiating table.

The agreement addresses several immediate concerns:

• Rising energy prices.
• Shipping disruptions.
• Escalating regional instability.
• Growing economic uncertainty.

At the same time, it leaves the most difficult questions unresolved.

This means the framework should be viewed as the beginning of a diplomatic process rather than its conclusion.

Its success will depend on whether negotiators can transform temporary understandings into binding commitments.

Key Stakeholders

• United States
• Iran
• Pakistan (mediator)
• Israel
• Lebanon
• Oman
• European powers
• Gulf Arab states
• International energy markets
• Global shipping industry
• International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and nuclear inspectors

What to Watch Next

• Formal signing of the memorandum in Switzerland.
• Reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
• Progress during the 60-day negotiation period.
• Discussions on Iran’s nuclear program.
• Decisions regarding sanctions relief.
• Reactions from Congress and international partners.
• Israeli actions in Lebanon and other contested areas.

The memorandum creates a framework for de-escalation, but its long-term success remains uncertain.

If implemented effectively, the agreement could stabilize energy markets, reduce regional tensions, and create momentum for broader diplomatic engagement.

However, many of the issues that triggered the conflict remain unresolved.

Nuclear enrichment, sanctions, regional security arrangements, and competing strategic interests are all likely to generate difficult negotiations.

The coming 60 days will therefore be more important than the announcement itself.

They will determine whether the framework becomes a durable peace process or merely a temporary pause in a conflict whose underlying disputes remain intact.

Analysis

The structure of the agreement reveals a pragmatic calculation by both Washington and Tehran.

Rather than attempting to solve every dispute at once, negotiators prioritized issues where agreement was achievable: ending active hostilities, reopening shipping routes, and creating a mechanism for future talks.

This approach reflects the political realities facing both governments.

For President Trump, reducing energy prices and ending a costly conflict addresses growing domestic pressure. For Iran, halting military operations while preserving room to negotiate on sanctions and nuclear issues offers a path to economic relief without immediate capitulation.

Yet the framework’s greatest strength may also be its greatest weakness.

By postponing the hardest questions, the agreement creates momentum for diplomacy but also leaves significant room for disagreement later. Nuclear enrichment, sanctions relief, and regional security arrangements are not peripheral issues—they are the core disputes that drove the conflict.

As a result, the memorandum should be viewed less as a peace treaty and more as a diplomatic bridge. It lowers immediate risks and creates opportunities for negotiation, but it does not yet resolve the strategic rivalry between the United States and Iran.

Whether this becomes a historic breakthrough or a temporary truce will depend on what happens after the signatures are placed on the document. The real negotiations are only beginning.

With information from Reuters.

Governments across the world have welcomed the tentative deal between the US and Iran to end the war, calling it a major diplomatic breakthrough. But Israeli politicians have been quick to criticise it, claiming it would undermine Israel’s security.

Israeli journalist Gideon Levy says the US-Iran announcement represents a personal defeat for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his ambitions against Iran and Lebanon. His relationship with US President Donald Trump could also be at risk if Israel jeopardises the deal.

The US and Iran say they have reached a deal to end fighting on all fronts and open the Strait of Hormuz. Al Jazeera’s Osama Bin Javaid explains how both sides are claiming victory, even as tough negotiations over the details still lie ahead.

The US-Iran ceasefire announcement has raised hopes in Lebanon, after Pakistani mediators claimed it included an end to Israel’s war on the country. But as Al Jazeera’s Heidi Pett explains, we’ve been here before.

Dan Perry: The US ‘may pretend’ that Israel can’t attack Hezbollah ‘in order to get this deal done’. Israeli affairs analyst Dan Perry explains how the US, Israel and Iran may react as they get closer to a potential agreement.

Henry Ensher, a former US ambassador, says the US–Iran agreement is not a final settlement but only the start of a process, with many ways it could still go wrong.

The Washington institution cut its global growth forecast by 0.4 percentage points to 2.5 percent, citing surging energy prices, inflation and borrowing costs.

The conflict in the Middle East is set to bring global economic growth to its slowest since the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Bank has warned.

In its latest Global Economic Prospects report, published on Thursday, the Washington-based institution cut its global growth forecast for 2026 to 2.5 percent from the 2.9 percent it had predicted in January, citing surging energy prices, rising inflation and higher borrowing costs.

The report highlights the significant economic costs of the conflict, which is at risk of flaring up again, as the fragile ceasefire between the United States and Iran is tested on both sides.

The analysis warns that the outlook could decline further if supply disruptions worsen. Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz – a vital passageway for oil and gas transit – in response to the hostilities launched by the US and Israel has put huge stress upon global energy and other supply chains.

The World Bank estimates that Brent crude prices — the international oil benchmark — will average $94 a barrel this year, 36 percent above last year’s average. Fertiliser prices are forecast to increase significantly this year, with knock-on effects for food prices.

Overall, the closure of the strategic waterway will help to push global inflation to 4 percent this year, a substantial increase from last year’s rate of 3.3 percent.

However, the World Bank cautions that global growth could plummet to as low as 1.3 percent this year, should energy supply disruptions worsen, with inflation pushing to 4.4 percent.

The World Bank report also cautions that developing countries are on the front line of the potential impact.

In its report, the institution has downgraded its growth forecasts for two-thirds of countries since January. Global growth is expected to improve to 2.8 percent in 2027, but will remain 0.4 percentage points below the average during the 2010s, during which the world economy was recovering from the global financial crisis.

Excluding China and India, the report worries that developing countries have made little progress towards narrowing their per capita income gap with wealthy nations over the past decade.

“Developing countries have faced a series of challenges over the last decade,” said Ajay Banga, president of the World Bank Group. “The impact differs by country, but the basic test is the same: protect people and preserve stability today, without giving up on growth and jobs tomorrow.”

The World Bank is pledging to assist any developing country experiencing the economic fallout of the Middle East conflict. The organisation says it has set aside up to $60bn to help. It added that if the conflict persists, it can increase its support to $100bn.

The eruption of the Middle East war in 2026, which began with strikes led by the US and Israel against Iran under Operation Epic Fury, carries devastating consequences for recovery, development and regional stability. The assassination of senior Iranian figures, most notably Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the involvement of Hezbollah and Houthis in support of Iran, alongside Iranian attacks on neighbouring countries, further escalated the crisis. The war transformed from a military confrontation into a broader regional political, diplomatic and economic crisis.

While global attention focused on military escalation, oil markets and the Strait of Hormuz, far less attention was given to the war’s humanitarian consequences, despite the massive and irreversible impacts. The conflict has triggered new waves of displacement across an already fragile region. However, there were no meaningful strategies to protect or to facilitate aid efforts to sustain the lives of displaced people, further exacerbating the life-threatening risks facing affected populations.

The displaced of the 2026 Middle East war

The Middle East was already carrying one of the world’s largest displacement burdens before this escalation, mainly due to the Syrian, Palestinian, Afghan and Iraqi refugees and internally displaced populations. The recent war has deepened these vulnerabilities by displacing millions more across Iran and Lebanon. The speed and scale of displacement reflect the severity of the humanitarian crisis unfolding in the region, overwhelming already strained humanitarian response efforts.

In Iran, the war intensified existing economic fragility and internal tensions while placing enormous pressure on state institutions not only to govern but also to effectively respond to the displacement crisis, a critical condition to maintain stability and prevent further chaos.

The displacement of over 3.2 million people has posed a serious challenge for the Iranian authorities. It has affected over 20 provinces, while the damage of 82,000 civilian infrastructure sites, disrupted essential services and attacks on healthcare have severely undermined the living conditions of displaced people.

Although figures fail to precisely capture the devastating realities experienced by displaced populations, they reflect the scale of vulnerability facing civilians forced to flee amid insufficient aid efforts and collapse of health, shelter and education systems.

Lebanon presents an even more fragile case, already affected by protracted conflict, sectarianism, the Beirut Port explosion and economic paralysis. While it was already hosting 1.4 million Syrian refugees and around 250,000 Palestinian refugees, the war has now led to the internal displacement of 1.3 million Lebanese civilians—one in five of the total population— with children accounting for a third of those displaced. The large-scale and ongoing displacement in the country has generated enormous needs, detrimentally affecting various areas of civilian life. While over 3,000 have been killed and more than 9,000 injured, around 130,000 people remain displaced in collective shelters, experiencing extremely difficult conditions. The plight of displaced populations in Lebanon is worsened by ongoing attacks on healthcare, lack of services and the destruction of the housing sector, in addition to limited access to education, where hundreds of schools are either closed or used as collective shelters.

Humanitarianism subordinated to hard politics

Efforts have been made to address the needs of displaced communities. These include government-led actions in Iran to, for example, address psychosocial and shelter needs and the work of local organisations and international agencies in Lebanon. Yet such efforts remain far from adequate, mainly due to the absence of serious international political will to prioritise civilian protection and displacement prevention.

Instead, regional and international actors continue to prioritise deterrence, strategic alliances, military positioning and regional influence over humanitarian protection. By the end of April, the Pentagon had reportedly spent $25bn on its war on Iran, with other estimates showing greater costs—ranging between $630bn and $1 trillion—amid US President Donald Trump’s request for an additional $1.5 trillion for defence. This is evident in how the US paused a $14bn arms sale to Taiwan to ensure its military readiness to face Iran. Iran’s resilience against these attacks and the use of drones—costing tens of thousands of euros—have pushed the US to dedicate more resources to the war. The use of financial means from both sides solely for war objectives while overlooking the humanitarian responsibilities exposes the extent to which military objectives have been prioritised over humanitarian response.

Even ongoing diplomatic efforts between Washington and Tehran reveal the extent to which humanitarian concerns remain secondary and completely neglected. The peace negotiations have largely focused on issues related to hard politics. These include Iran’s nuclear programme, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s frozen assets under US sanctions, with all these elements mainly addressing the security, financial and economic implications of the war.

The absence of the displacement crisis from peace agreements and negotiations reveals the deficiencies posed by the international human rights and humanitarian regimes. They underscore a reality where human lives continue to be shaped not by principles of protection, but by the strategic interests of powerful states.

This transformed the plight of affected populations in Iran and Lebanon from a humanitarian concern into a tolerated byproduct of geopolitical strategy.

Implications for future generations: The way forward

The humanitarian consequences of this war will not end when the war ends. Long-term displacement carries profound risks for future generations in Iran and Lebanon through collapsing health systems, interrupted education, intensifying social fragmentation and deepening poverty and dependency on international aid. Thus, the failure to protect displaced populations today risks producing future instability across the region. Addressing this requires tailored humanitarian interventions, international responsibility—especially from the US and Iran as the primary conflicting states—towards affected populations and the adoption of prevention strategies in future wars.

The international community, conflicting parties and international organisations must take practical yet realistic—acknowledging the centrality of self-interest during wars between states—steps towards addressing this issue. Without international responsibility sharing and collaborative efforts, the already-fragile international humanitarian system fails to continue functioning as the primary response mechanism, especially amid the growing humanitarian funding cuts due to the occurrence of other “national priorities”. Therefore, the US and Iran, alongside the international community, must dedicate resources to lead a comprehensive emergency response to alleviate the impacts of war on affected communities. This has to begin with protection-centred diplomacy, where the plight of displaced populations is prioritised among other key areas in the peace agreements.

Equally important is the stricter implementation of international legal frameworks to protect civilian populations during armed conflicts through accountability measures for violations against civilians. The role of international organisations and UN agencies is decisive in these matters, given their expertise and international positionality—though shrinking—when it comes to humanitarian missions and peacekeeping. Such efforts must revolve around promoting, integrating and imposing the adoption of humanitarian safeguarding standards for civilians in military and political decision-making. If displacement continues to be treated as collateral damage rather than political responsibility, the Middle East will keep producing generations of displaced people, serving the interests of regional and global powers.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Markets betting a deal will reopen the Strait of Hormuz and soothe the deep global economic uncertainty cast by the closure of the vital oil & gas route.

The United States stock market has been hovering near record highs and oil prices have plunged amid new hope that a ceasefire deal between the US and Iran is close.

The rally came on Wednesday as negotiations continued between Washington and Tehran, with markets betting that a deal would reopen the vital Strait of Hormuz, easing oil and gas supply concerns and soothing the deep uncertainty afflicting the global economy.

Oil prices declined sharply after Iran’s state broadcaster said it had obtained a preliminary document outlining a framework for a potential deal.

The price of US crude fell 5.5 percent to settle at $88.68, while Brent crude, the international oil benchmark, decreased to $92 after prices traded above $100 last week.

The report suggested that Iran would allow traffic through the strait at pre-war levels within 30 days. It added that the US would lift its naval blockade on Iranian ports.

Prices remained subdued even after the White House dismissed the report as a “complete fabrication”.

The S&P 500 rose 0.1 percent and added to its all-time high set the day before. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 243 points, or 0.5 percent, with an hour remaining in trading, and the Nasdaq composite was 0.1 percent higher.

Wednesday is far from the first time markets have rallied amid reports of a possible end to the war, only to slump once more as negotiations fail to deliver a resolution.

However, the strength of the current surge reflects statements over the past week that suggest the two parties may be closer than ever to reaching a deal.

President Donald Trump said during a cabinet meeting on Wednesday that US officials were not yet satisfied with the agreement, “but we will be”.

“I think they’re starting to give us the things that they have to give us,” he said. “And if they do, that’s great, and if they won’t, then the man on my left will have to finish them off,” he said, pointing at Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Sticking points

It remains unclear whether the two parties have come to an understanding on the major sticking points, including the fate of about 440 kilogrammes (970lbs) of highly enriched uranium; Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, which the US has long insisted it wants to see dismantled in its entirety; Tehran’s ballistic missiles and its support for armed groups in the region.

It is also not clear whether a halt in hostilities in Lebanon would be part of a deal. Iranian officials have repeatedly said that any agreement would have to include that. However, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this week ordered the Israeli military to step up its attacks against Hezbollah.

There are also questions on whether Washington would agree to lift its sanctions against Iran and release millions in frozen assets.

Brent crude edged 2.5% higher on Tuesday and seems to have steadied around $100 per barrel at the time of writing, as US-Iran negotiations stall.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

On the other hand, WTI dropped over 4% and is trading around $92.6 per barrel.

Overall, oil prices were declining since last Wednesday as the framework for a peace deal, or at least a longer and more encompassing ceasefire, between the US and Iran was seemingly on the verge of being agreed.

However, Iran accused the US of breaching the current ceasefire after Washington carried out what it described as defensive strikes in the southern part of the country.

Iran’s foreign ministry stated that the US attacks in the Hormozgan province, where Iranian media reported hearing explosions early Tuesday, amounted to a “serious violation” of the fragile ceasefire that has been in effect for almost seven weeks.

Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said negotiations aimed at ending the conflict could require “a few days” to reach an agreement.

On Monday, US President Donald Trump also reiterated nuclear demands in a social media post, as tensions continue to surround the fundamental aspects of a possible agreement.

Investors appear to have mixed reactions to the developments with some markets seeming to price in a decrease in the probability that a deal is imminent.

In Europe, the Euro Stoxx 50 has fallen more than 0.7% while the broader pan-European Stoxx 600 is trading around 1% lower as we approach the close of Tuesday’s session.

The UK’s FTSE 100, Germany’s DAX 30, France’s CAC 40, Italy’s FTSE MIB, the Netherlands’ AEX and Switzerland’s CH20 have all dropped between 0.1% and 0.7%.

Over in Asia, Japan’s Nikkei 225 and Taiwan’s TAIEX closed flat, but South Korea’s KOSPI jumped 2.5% primarily driven by a continuous demand for AI-related equities.

However, US markets appear completely decoupled from other indices and the broader situation. Not only have WTI prices continued to fall on Tuesday but the S&P 500 also opened 0.6% higher.

Latest on the Strait of Hormuz

Both the US and Iran had signalled headway toward a memorandum of understanding that could end the conflict and resume maritime traffic through the blocked Strait of Hormuz, while allowing negotiators a 60-day window to tackle more complicated matters such as Iran’s nuclear activities and supplies.

In his latest remarks, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the Strait of Hormuz must remain accessible “one way or the other” as traffic through the chokepoint has dropped sharply, with only a few dozen ships currently using the route each day, compared with the usual 125 to 140 vessels.

Iran has continued to permit limited shipping, prioritising vessels connected to allied or friendly nations and arranging passage through state-to-state agreements.

Continuous reports of attacks in the Strait of Hormuz underscore how far from the normalisation of energy flows and other supplies the global economy still is.

On Tuesday, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) reported that a tanker experienced an external blast near the waterline on its port side.

According to the agency, the vessel was located about 60 nautical miles from Muscat, the capital of Oman.

UKMTO said the tanker and all crew members were unharmed, although a quantity of bunker fuel spilled into the sea.

This is the most recent reported incident near the Strait of Hormuz at the time of writing.

As the US and Iran move closer to a peace deal, Israel says it reserves the right to keep attacking regional ‘threats’, including in Lebanon, despite any US‑brokered ceasefire. Meanwhile, criticism within Israel is growing over Netanyahu’s handling of the war.

Japan’s stock market surges to record high on hopes of an end to US-Israel war on Iran.

Oil prices have fallen sharply amid tentative hopes for a deal to end the US-Israel war on Iran.

Brent crude, the primary benchmark for global oil prices, fell about 5 percent on Sunday as US President Donald Trump gave mixed signals on the prospects for a permanent end to the conflict.

Brent futures for July stood at $98.47 a barrel as of 01:05 GMT, down about 9 percent from a month ago but still up by more than a third compared with before the start of the war.

Japan’s benchmark stock index, the Nikkei 225, surged more than 3 percent in morning trading, hitting an all-time high after closing at a record peak on Friday.

Trump said in a social media post on Sunday that negotiations with Tehran were proceeding in an “orderly and constructive manner”, but he had instructed officials “not to rush into a deal”.

“Both sides must take their time and get it right. There can be no mistakes!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Trump’s remarks came after he raised hopes for a breakthrough on Saturday by announcing that a deal had been “largely negotiated,” with the terms including the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

“Fundamentally, there is no change to the underlying picture, where 10-11 million barrels per day of crude oil continue to be shut-in for every day the Strait of Hormuz remains shut,” June Goh, a senior oil market analyst at Sparta in Singapore, told Al Jazeera.

“However, markets are expecting a gush of 100 million barrels of crude oil from the stranded ships to flow out once the deal is in place.”

Goh said markets are likely to remain on edge for some time after any deal is finalised.

“Sparta estimates still about three to six months required to get everything back to status quo, including time to bring production and refineries back online,” Goh said.

Iran has effectively blockaded the strait since the start of the war in late February, disrupting about one-fifth of the global oil trade.

The US has imposed its own blockade of Iranian ports since mid-April, further disrupting commercial shipping in the waterway.

In his Truth Social post on Sunday, Trump said the US blockade would remain “in full force and effect until an agreement is reached, certified, and signed”.

EXPLAINER

US and Iran continue mediated talks, exchanging draft proposals aimed at reaching a formal agreement.

Iran and the United States are continuing mediated talks aimed at ending the conflict, with Iranian media reporting that both sides are exchanging messages and draft proposals to establish a formal framework for an agreement.

Al Jazeera’s correspondent Almigdad Alruhaid reported from Tehran that Pakistani officials were engaged in “intense mediation activity” between the two countries.

The diplomatic push comes as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said there were “some good signs” for a possible breakthrough. However, US President Donald Trump also warned Washington could take “very drastic” action if Iran refuses to give up its uranium stockpiles.

Here is what we know:

In Iran

• ‘War crime’ on medical research centre: Iran has accused the US and Israel of committing a “war crime” by bombing the Pasteur Institute of Iran early in the war, after The Lancet journal warned that the attack severely damaged a key pillar of the country’s public health system.

• Thousands rescued from rubble: The Iranian Red Crescent said its aid workers rescued more than 7,200 people trapped beneath rubble during US and Israeli attacks, sharing footage of survivors being pulled from destroyed buildings for the first time.

War diplomacy

• Nuclear ‘red lines’ must shift: Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, said the US and Iran will need to move beyond conflicting “red lines” on Tehran’s nuclear programme for negotiations to make progress. Speaking to Al Jazeera, Bandow said both sides must be willing to compromise and continue serious talks if they want to avoid further escalation and move away from war.
• Rubio sees ‘good signs’ in talks: US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said negotiations with Iran have shown “some progress”, while cautioning that it remains unclear whether a deal can be reached in the coming days. Rubio said President Donald Trump still prefers a diplomatic agreement, but warned Washington has “other options” if talks fail.
• Pakistani mediation efforts intensify in Tehran: Al Jazeera’s Alruhaid said senior Pakistani officials are engaged in “intense mediation activity” in Tehran as efforts accelerate to prevent further escalation. While one senior Iranian official said negotiators were close to a deal and working on draft texts, another source cautioned it was still too early to say whether a final agreement was within reach.

In the US

• US forces at ‘peak readiness’:  CENTCOM said the USS Abraham Lincoln strike group remains at “peak readiness” in the Arabian Sea, sharing images of warplanes taking off as Washington maintains pressure on Iran amid ongoing mediation efforts.

• US reportedly suffers major Reaper drone losses: Iran has destroyed more than two dozen MQ-9 Reaper drones operated by US forces since the conflict began, according to Bloomberg News. The reported losses are estimated at $1bn, nearly 20 percent of the Pentagon’s pre-war inventory.
• US pauses Taiwan arms sales: Acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao told a Senate hearing that Washington has paused a $14bn arms sale to Taiwan to ensure the US has enough munitions for its military campaign against Iran, a move Republican Senator Mitch McConnell called “distressing”.

In Lebanon and Palestine

• Israeli strike kills two in southern Lebanon: The Israeli military said it carried out an air raid that killed two people near the Lebanon-Israel border, after detecting what it described as “suspicious movement” in southern Lebanon.
• US sanctions allies of Hezbollah: The US has imposed sanctions on nine people accused of helping Hezbollah undermine Lebanon’s sovereignty and obstruct efforts to disarm the group, including Lebanese politicians, security officials and Iran’s ambassador-designate to Beirut.

• Palestinian envoy condemns aid blockade: Palestine’s UN envoy Riyad Mansour said Israel is continuing to collectively punish more than two million Palestinians through its blockade on aid and ongoing attacks, warning the world must not become “accustomed to seeing Palestinians killed”.

• US urges humane treatment of flotilla detainees: According to Al Jazeera’s Ali Harb, the US State Department said activists detained by Israeli forces after attempting to break the Gaza blockade “must be treated humanely and consistent with international law”, while also reiterating Washington’s opposition to the flotilla movement.

A new opinion poll in the US suggests that 60 percent of Americans now oppose President Donald Trump’s war on Iran.