REPORT: Strait of Hormuz Reopened — 60 Days Toll-Free, and Then What?

Introduction: The Planet's Greatest Oil Artery Catches Its Breath

A Deal Signed in Urgency and Ambiguity

On June 19, 2026, in a Swiss palace in Geneva, US Vice President JD Vance and Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf initialed a fourteen-point memorandum of understanding designed to end four months of conflict that had paralyzed the Strait of Hormuz and plunged the global economy into an energy crisis without precedent since the Gulf War. According to AP, CNBC, and BBC, the text provides for toll-free passage for sixty days, from the date of signing, for all commercial vessels crossing this strategic waterway between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. It is the first time since the conflict's outbreak on February 28, 2026 that such a written guarantee has been obtained.

But beneath the surface of a diplomatic victory lies a far murkier reality. The agreement closes no door on future navigation fees demanded by Tehran. Iran's chief negotiator, Ghalibaf, declared upon leaving Geneva on June 23, 2026: "The Strait of Hormuz will never return to what it was before the war," according to Al Jazeera. The memorandum's terms are simultaneously a face-saving victory for Washington and a foot in the door for Iran, which now aims to monetize passage through the world's most critical maritime chokepoint.

An Unprecedented Crisis: Raw Numbers and Hard Realities

For more than one hundred days, approximately 20 percent of global oil and liquefied natural gas exports were blocked. According to BBC News and data from maritime intelligence agency Kpler, nearly 600 vessels remained stranded in the Persian Gulf in June 2026, waiting for clearance to cross the strait. The Brent crude price had reached between $115 and $118 per barrel during the March 2026 spike, with physical prices reported as high as $141 according to some market analyses. The American Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) had fallen to its lowest level since 1983, around 340 million barrels, with President Trump publicly warning that reserves risked being exhausted within weeks.

The human toll is equally alarming. According to BBC News, approximately 20,000 sailors had been stranded at sea since February 2026, trapped in or near a war zone. At least eleven sailors lost their lives as a direct result of the conflict, according to the International Maritime Organization. Vessels from twenty different nationalities were navigating in darkness, AIS disabled, hugging the Omani coast in attempts to evade Iranian mines and drones. This maritime crisis is the gravest the world has seen since the Second World War.

Timeline of the Conflict: From Attack to Memorandum

February 28, 2026: The Date That Changed Everything

Everything begins on February 28, 2026 with joint American-Israeli strikes on Iranian territory, which led Tehran to unilaterally close the Strait of Hormuz, according to concurrent accounts from AP, BBC, The Guardian, and CNBC. Iran laid mines in the central traffic separation zone — a lane used without interruption since 1968 — and attacked vessels attempting to transit the passage. The economic consequences were immediate and brutal: the maritime route through which a fifth of global crude oil exports flowed shut like a vault door.

A first ceasefire had been declared on April 8, 2026, but it quickly fell apart due to the continued American naval blockade of Iranian ports. Targeted American strikes were carried out in May 2026 against Iranian installations near Bandar Abbas, which Washington described as "defensive" strikes, provoking Tehran's fury at what it called a "serious violation" of agreements. It was against this backdrop of deep mutual mistrust that negotiations, conducted under the auspices of Pakistan and Qatar as mediators, finally produced the June 2026 agreement.

June 14, 2026: Trump Announces the Deal on Truth Social

At 9:30 PM GMT on June 14, 2026, Donald Trump posted on his Truth Social platform: "The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete." He announced the "toll-free opening of the Strait of Hormuz" and the immediate lifting of the American naval blockade on Iranian ports. The announcement sent Brent crude down more than 4 percent in the first hours, to approximately $83.55 per barrel according to BBC Business. The world held its breath, but the operational reality proved far more complicated than the presidential communication suggested.

The formal signing of the memorandum took place on June 19, 2026 in Geneva. Trump had already signed the document at the G7 summit in Évian-les-Bains, France, on June 17, according to BBC News. Iranian delegation chief Ghalibaf and Vice President Vance subsequently presided over the technical discussions in Geneva. This is the highest-level meeting between Washington and Tehran since 1979 — a historic fact worth acknowledging, even if its consequences remain profoundly uncertain.

The Fourteen-Point Memorandum: What the Text Actually Says

Iran's Commitments: Strait, Mines, and Nuclear

According to the text released by American authorities on June 17, 2026 and reported by CNBC, BBC, and Arab News, the fourteen-point memorandum stipulates that "Iran will deploy its best efforts to ensure the safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz without fees for sixty days." The formulation — best efforts — is telling: it imposes not an obligation of result but an obligation of means, which leaves Tehran considerable room for legal interpretation. Iran also commits to clearing the mines it planted in the strait's central channel, with a thirty-day deadline from signing. The nuclear question is deferred to subsequent negotiations: Iran reaffirms its commitment never to develop a nuclear weapon, and its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium are to be diluted on-site under IAEA supervision.

The text also provides for an end to hostilities on all fronts, including in Lebanon, where Israel — which is not a party to the agreement — is conducting operations against Hezbollah. This point constitutes one of the text's major flaws: how can a ceasefire in Lebanon be guaranteed when Israel has not signed? The Israeli Defense Minister declared the very next day that his country would not withdraw from occupied Lebanese territories. It is precisely this contradiction that led Iran, on June 20, to announce the strait's closure in retaliation for Israeli strikes on Lebanon.

American Commitments: Blockade, Sanctions, and Reconstruction

In return, Washington commits to progressively lifting its naval blockade on Iranian ports, with a complete suspension expected within thirty days of signing. According to BBC News, US Central Command (CENTCOM) confirmed on June 18, 2026 the end of the interception of vessels bound for or departing Iranian ports. The United States immediately granted sanctions waivers on Iranian crude oil exports, allowing Tehran to sell its oil freely on international markets during the sixty-day period. A reconstruction plan estimated at at least $300 billion is also mentioned, funded not by American taxpayers, JD Vance specified, but by Gulf states in the form of investments in Iran.

The definitive lifting of all American and UN sanctions against Iran remains conditional on the results of upcoming nuclear negotiations. According to Arab News, "zero dollars of frozen assets have been released by the United States or any other country" at the time of signing. The framework is therefore clear: Iran receives immediate benefits (the right to sell its oil), while the major concessions remain tied to future nuclear performance — what the Trump administration calls a "performance-based agreement."

The 80 Mines of the Strait: A Concrete Obstacle to Traffic Recovery

The Poisoned Legacy of the Iranian Blockade

The deal is signed, the blockade lifted — but the mines remain. According to The Guardian, the global shipowners' organization Intertanko confirmed that the central lane of the Strait of Hormuz contains approximately 80 mines, laid by Iran during the months of war to obstruct navigation. Phil Belcher, Intertanko's maritime director, declared: "The main route through the center of the Strait of Hormuz is closed and presents considerable dangers. The number of mines is significant and will require a substantial amount of time to remove." This statement cuts brutally through the triumphalism of the agreement's opening hours.

Estimates of demining timelines vary considerably across sources. The minimum threshold for achieving sufficient confidence for insurers and shipping companies is estimated at 40 to 50 days according to maritime analytics firm Kpler's data cited by specialist sources. The Pentagon cites up to six months for full technical clearance and certification. Retired US Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery, interviewed on BBC Radio 4, specified that it would take "weeks to months" to fully clear the mines and allow navigation without military escort. This means that even with the agreement in hand, the central route remains physically unsafe for the vast majority of commercial vessels.

The Detour Route and Its Limits

While demining proceeds, vessels are using the Omani coastal route, further south, outside the mined zones but significantly narrower and more prone to collisions. According to The Guardian, there are reports of Iranian electronic jamming during the conflict, disrupting ships' AIS and GPS systems, leaving them literally navigating blind through one of the world's busiest maritime passages. Richard Meade, editor-in-chief of Lloyd's List, declared: "I doubt that navigation in the strait will return to normal this year." Peter Sand, chief analyst at Xeneta, added that the agreement should be approached with "realism and extreme caution," noting that approximately 10 percent of global container shipping capacity remains affected.

A progressive reopening is nevertheless being observed. Kpler recorded at least 20 tankers crossing the strait on Thursday, June 19, 2026 — the highest level since the start of June but still far short of the 100 to 130 vessels per day seen before the war. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright announced on June 22 that 67 vessels had passed in the previous 24 hours, "approximately the level we had before the conflict," escorted by the US Navy along the safe channel south of the mined canal. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, one of Japan's shipping giants, nonetheless cautioned that it would take "at least a few weeks, maybe a month" before the resumption is truly materialized.

The Iranian Threat of Future Tolls: The Legal Standoff

Ghalibaf: "Iran Will Collect Service Fees"

On June 17, 2026, while the memorandum's ink was barely dry, Iran's chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf declared on state television: "The Strait of Hormuz will not return to its pre-war situation. Iran has sovereign rights over the Strait of Hormuz and will of course collect fees for services rendered." He called the agreement a "report card of American failure," asserting that the Iranian people would know how to judge it. These remarks, reported by Firstpost, Chosunbiz, and The Hindu, immediately cast doubt on the agreement's sustainability.

The legal stakes are complex. International maritime law, notably the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), formally prohibits transit tolls on natural international straits, but authorizes the collection of service fees for actual services rendered (pilotage, marking, environmental). That is precisely the distinction Tehran is exploiting: not formally illegal "tolls," but "maritime service fees" whose amount could easily reach several hundred thousand dollars per vessel. According to the New York Times, during the months of conflict, some vessels paid as much as $2 million to Iran for a single transit. These potential revenues constitute a massive financial incentive for Tehran to maintain its grip on the strait.

The Legal Battle to Come

The memorandum itself does not close the door. It stipulates that Iran and Oman will jointly define "the future modalities of maritime administration and services" for the strait, in consultation with Gulf states, within the framework of international law. This carefully ambiguous formulation allows Iran to argue that its future governance of the passage will comply with maritime law while collecting remuneration that Washington calls illegal tolls. The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) noted that "the Iranian interpretation of the agreement would constitute a major strategic victory for Iran if it became the recognized reality."

In practical terms, Tehran has already established a precedent during the conflict. According to diplomatic sources reported by Israel Hayom and cited by Iran International, a secret agreement may even have been reached with Qatar, authorizing Qatari vessels to transit in exchange for payment of billions of dollars to Tehran, with part of the payments disguised as passage fees. If Iran succeeds in institutionalizing this system after the sixty-day period, the world will face a geopolitical and legal precedent without equivalent: a non-UNCLOS signatory state effectively controlling the planet's main oil strait.

Trump's Counter-Threat: "Guardian Angel" and American Tolls

The Bombshell Declaration on Truth Social

On June 20, 2026, as Iran once again declared the strait closed in retaliation for Israeli strikes on Lebanon, Donald Trump responded with a Truth Social post that immediately circled the globe: "There will be NO TOLLS in the Strait of Hormuz during the 60-day ceasefire period, and there will be NO TOLLS after the 60-day period expires, unless they are imposed by and for the United States of America, if the deal is not made, for services rendered as the Guardian Angel of Middle Eastern countries for past, present and future cost reimbursement," according to India Today and Euronews. Trumpian rhetoric at its peak.

This declaration takes on another dimension in a Fox News interview given the same weekend, reported by the Anadolu Agency. Trump is said to have told Iranian officials: "If you close the Strait of Hormuz, you will no longer have a country." He threatened to take control of the strait if necessary, and to levy 20 percent of the oil transiting through it as compensation. He also warned Tehran: "We can strike Iran again, even harder." These declarations, while confirming Washington's hard line, also reflect the limits of an agreement whose implementation depends on the goodwill of a regime that has never concealed its structural hostility toward the West.

JD Vance in Switzerland: Negotiations Continue Through the Storm

Despite these tensions, Vice President JD Vance stayed the course to Switzerland for the first round of technical negotiations at Bürgenstock, beginning June 21, 2026. According to CNBC, Vance told journalists: "Yes, there was a little tension, a little bit of threat-making, but at the end of the day, negotiations continued and we made great progress." Pakistani and Qatari mediators confirmed that a framework agreement for a definitive settlement within sixty days had been sketched out, with the creation of a high-level committee to oversee mediation and guarantee the cessation of hostilities in Lebanon.

On June 22, 2026, Washington temporarily lifted its sanctions on Iranian oil after Vance signaled that Tehran had agreed to allow UN nuclear inspectors to re-enter the country. This concrete American concession, obtained in less than a week of negotiations, illustrates the agreement's dynamic: two powers threatening each other on one hand while making concessions on the other, in a diplomatic ballet whose outcome remains deeply uncertain. Against this backdrop, maritime traffic data from Windward confirmed the situation remained volatile: only 12 strait crossings were recorded on Sunday, June 22, down from more than 21 the day before.

The Impact on Oil Prices: A Spectacular but Fragile Fall

From the War Peak to the Post-Deal Collapse

The story of oil prices during this conflict is one of shock and counter-shock. According to market analyses from COTInsight and data from Reuters and Bloomberg, Brent crude had reached a peak of between $115 and $118 per barrel in late March 2026, as the strait's closure became manifest — with physical prices reportedly around $141 on the spot market, the widest gap between futures and physical prices in decades. WTI crude had simultaneously reached similar highs, inflating fuel, diesel, and energy bills around the world.

The announcement of the deal on June 14 triggered a sharp fall. Brent dropped to approximately $83.55 in the first hours, before continuing to depreciate over the following days to reach $78.57 on June 17 — its lowest level since early March, according to Trading Economics. WTI had returned to around $81. In cumulative terms, oil lost approximately 11 percent in a matter of days after the memorandum was signed. The market was betting on the imminent return of tens of millions of barrels stranded in the Gulf — a reserve estimated at 93 million barrels of non-Iranian oil immobilized in the Persian Gulf according to Kpler, plus approximately 72 million barrels of Iranian oil aboard tankers west of Chabahar.

A Normalization That Will Take Months, Not Days

But the price decline quickly ran into structural limits. The mines still present, reluctant maritime insurers, CONWARTIME clauses still active in charter contracts — all practical barriers preventing rapid normalization. The Joint Maritime Information Center (JMIC) had lowered the threat level in the strait from "severe" to "substantial" on June 17 according to CNBC, but it remained two levels above the "moderate" threshold that would allow P&I clubs and war insurers to resume standard coverage. Without insurance, no serious shipowner will risk their vessels.

Neil Shearing, chief economist at Capital Economics, quoted by BBC, summarized the situation cautiously: "It is uncertain whether the deal represents a fragile ceasefire or a durable resolution. It may take time before oil deliveries through the strait return to pre-war levels." By his estimates, if a definitive ceasefire is established, normalization — including oil prices — could only occur by late 2026 at the earliest. In the meantime, the American Strategic Reserve remains at its lowest level since 1983, and oil-importing countries are still navigating by sight in a high-volatility market.

The World Economy Under Pressure: Beyond Oil

Global Shipping Brought to a Halt

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz did not only affect the price of crude. According to data from Peter Sand at Xeneta relayed by The Guardian, approximately 10 percent of global container shipping capacity had been disrupted, triggering a surge in freight rates on major routes. Global shipping giants — Maersk (the world's second largest, with five vessels stranded in the Gulf) and Hapag-Lloyd (four vessels immobilized) — had suspended or significantly reduced their operations in the region for months. Global supply chains, already weakened by previous crises, absorbed a new shock of exceptional magnitude.

Food prices also came under significant pressure in regions dependent on Gulf oil imports for their agriculture. According to AP, the conflict "drove up prices for fuel, food, and essential goods far beyond the region." Countries in South and Southeast Asia, massively dependent on Gulf oil imports, were particularly hard hit. India, Japan, South Korea — strategic partners of the West — saw their trade balances deteriorate and their central banks forced to intervene to support currencies under unprecedented pressure.

OPEC's Response and the Limits of Compensation

Faced with this crisis, OPEC+ responded with a series of symbolic quota increases — four adjustments since the strait's closure, the latest covering approximately 188,000 barrels per day of additional production for June 2026, according to COTInsight analyses. These figures, modest against the scale of the shock — which had removed the equivalent of 20 million barrels per day of oil from maritime routes — had only a marginal effect on prices. Saudi Arabia in particular, the main exporter via the strait, was in a paradoxical situation: its 5.5 million barrels per day remained blocked by Iranian mines, while Iranian tankers, de facto exempt from the blockade, could circulate in the PGSA corridor — a five-nautical-mile lane in Iranian territorial waters formally established on May 5, 2026.

This striking asymmetry was documented by maritime experts: Iran had mined the international central channel while carving out a passage in its own territorial waters that it controlled and monetized. Vessels of the National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC) had begun transiting as early as June 15–16, before the formal signing. Brent had fallen to $78.57 at that precise moment — the market integrating imminent Iranian deliveries, while Saudi, Kuwaiti, Emirati, and Iraqi barrels continued to wait for the mines to be cleared. A cruel geopolitical irony for the Gulf allies.

The Role of Pakistan and Qatar: Indispensable Mediators

Islamabad, an Unexpected Intermediary

One of the most striking facts of this diplomatic crisis is the central role played by Pakistan as the main mediator between Washington and Tehran. It was Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif who announced first, in a post on X (formerly Twitter), that an agreement had been reached on June 14, 2026, calling for "the immediate and permanent cessation of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon." This involvement by Islamabad illustrates how desperately the United States needed credible regional relays with Tehran against a backdrop of total mutual mistrust.

Pakistan maintains complex but functional relations with Iran — two countries sharing a long, often unstable land border but cooperating in certain energy areas. For Washington, Islamabad represents a useful bridge — even if the American-Pakistani relationship is itself marked by a turbulent history. According to Reuters and Al-Monitor, negotiations had begun "after a difficult and rigorous phase of several months," according to Iran's Supreme National Security Council. Pakistani mediation was complemented by Qatar's presence in the technical talks at Bürgenstock, Qatar having played a facilitating financial role in discussions on frozen Iranian assets.

Doha and the Financial Intermediary Game

The Qatari role deserves special attention. According to diplomatic sources cited by Iran International, Washington is said to have secretly approved a financial and maritime agreement between Doha and Tehran, under which billions of dollars were paid to Iran in exchange for free passage for Qatari tankers and vessels through the strait. A credit line of approximately $1 billion for the purchase of goods via Qatar is also said to have been opened. If accurate, this information reveals a geography of complicity far exceeding the bilateral US-Iran framework, raising serious questions about the coherence of Western sanctions.

On the diplomatic level, Qatar's mediation during the Bürgenstock technical negotiations allowed both delegations to maintain a communication channel even after the turbulence of the weekend of June 20–22. It was through this channel that on June 22, Washington and Tehran agreed to establish a "communication line" to "prevent incidents and misunderstandings" in the strait, according to Pakistani and Qatari mediators cited by The Hindu. A kind of maritime hotline whose very existence testifies to the structural fragility of the peace being built.

The Iranian Nuclear Question: The Core Problem Deferred

A Stockpile of Enriched Uranium That Remains Threatening

The June 2026 memorandum reaffirms Iran's commitment to "never acquire or develop a nuclear weapon" — a commitment Tehran had already made in the 2015 deal with the major powers, which did not prevent it from accumulating a stockpile of more than 9,000 kilograms of highly enriched uranium. According to information reported by BBC and the Irish Times, the text provides at minimum that this uranium be "diluted on-site" under IAEA supervision — but the exact modality of that dilution, its precise timeline, and its verification mechanisms are deferred to the sixty days of upcoming technical negotiations.

Israel is not a party to the agreement. Its central concern — preventing Iran from reaching military nuclear capability — remains entirely unresolved. JD Vance declared on NBC that American and international nuclear inspectors would be allowed to return to Iran to oversee the destruction of enriched uranium. But no binding timetable has been made public. For anti-Iran hawks in the US Congress, this agreement looks like a gift to Tehran — immediate and real concessions (free oil, blockade lifted) against future promises on nuclear weapons whose verification remains uncertain.

The West Facing Its Own Credibility

The experience of the 2015 JCPOA, unilaterally abandoned by Trump in 2018, haunts every capital. Iran has drawn lessons from that precedent: it will not grant major nuclear concessions before obtaining solid legal and institutional guarantees that Washington will not back down a second time. Nate Swanson, a former American official who worked on Iran, cited by Politifact, summarized: "Bilateral relations have not been restored, sanctions have not been lifted, and very little substance has been accomplished to date."

For the West as a whole, the Iranian nuclear issue remains the most dangerous variable in this crisis. An Iran possessing nuclear weapons would fundamentally alter the Middle East's strategic balance, encourage regional proliferation (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt would all then have reasons to develop their own programs), and destabilize the architecture of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) at the global level. The West must obtain solid, verifiable nuclear guarantees in the next sixty days — not just promises repeated endlessly for forty-five years.

Israel and Lebanon: The Agreement's Time Bomb

Tel Aviv, Absent From the Memorandum but Central to the Crisis

One of the agreement's most obvious structural weaknesses stems from the fact that Israel, which had participated in the opening strikes of February 28, 2026 alongside the United States, is not a signatory to the memorandum. The text stipulates an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Lebanon, including guarantees of Lebanese territorial integrity against the Israeli offensive against Hezbollah. But the Israeli Defense Minister made it clear the very next day that his country would not withdraw from occupied Lebanese territories. This contradiction immediately gave Iran a pretext to announce a new strait closure on June 20.

Iran justified this decision by citing clause 1 of the memorandum, which requires the cessation of military operations on all fronts. According to The Guardian, a Hezbollah official indicated that Iran had informed the movement it would not reopen the strait as long as Israel did not publicly announce compliance with a "comprehensive ceasefire" in Lebanon. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards warned all vessels not to approach the strait, calling the situation a danger zone. Washington contested this claim — CENTCOM asserting that "Iran does not control the Strait of Hormuz" — but the confusion was sufficient to significantly slow traffic on Sunday, June 22, according to Windward.

The Agreement on the Brink: The Day of June 21

On June 21, 2026, as JD Vance was taking off for Switzerland, Trump declared on Fox News — in more threatening terms than ever — that he had warned the Iranians in a nighttime communication: "If you close the Strait of Hormuz, you will no longer have a country." He added: "We can take control of the strait if we must." These declarations, reported by the Anadolu Agency, illustrate the structural paradox of the situation: a peace agreement negotiated by diplomats and simultaneously dynamited by the rhetoric of the American executive's own chief — a rhetoric which, while reassuring some Gulf allies, also fuels Iranian hawks who are waiting for any pretext to torpedo the reconciliation.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright nonetheless offered a more reassuring note the same day, declaring on Fox News that "traffic is flowing quite well through the strait" and that 67 vessels had transited the passage in the previous 24 hours, "approximately the level before the conflict." The US Navy continued to escort commercial vessels along the secured channel to the south, bypassing the mined central zone. The agreement holds — on a razor's edge, in uncomfortable ambiguity, but it holds. At least as of the morning of June 23, 2026, the date of this report.

The Europeans: Mine-Sweepers and Maritime Sovereignty Stakes

France and Its Allies on the Front Line of Demining

While Washington and Tehran were negotiating in Geneva, Europeans quickly understood they had a concrete card to play: demining. French President Emmanuel Macron declared on June 16, 2026 on channel TF1 that the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle could be deployed to the region "within two to three days," accompanied by mine-countermeasure capabilities, according to Stars and Stripes. European officials specified that their participation in any mission in the Strait of Hormuz would only occur after the formal end of hostilities — a condition met with the memorandum's signing.

This European initiative is both pragmatic and strategic. Pragmatic because European navies have real expertise in mine warfare, a field where the US Navy has more limited capabilities. Strategic because a European presence in the strait's demining operation reinforces the international legitimacy of the operation and anchors the process in the framework of international law, limiting Iran's capacity to claim exclusive control over the procedure. If Europe contributes to demining, the Iranian argument that the strait falls under its sole sovereignty is weakened politically and legally.

Maritime Sovereignty at Stake

The question of the Strait of Hormuz actually raises maritime sovereignty stakes that go far beyond the Iranian crisis. If Tehran succeeds in imposing its management of the passage after the sixty-day period, other coastal states could draw inspiration from this precedent to attempt to monetize international straits that they border. International maritime law, which guarantees free "innocent passage" in international straits, is directly threatened. The West therefore has a structural interest in this precedent not being set — not only for oil, but for the whole of global maritime commerce, which rests on freedom of navigation.

Lloyd's List experts concluded that even in the best scenario — a definitive agreement signed within sixty days and demining carried through to completion — navigation in the Strait of Hormuz would not return to pre-war normalcy before late 2026 at the earliest. This sober estimate should be the reference framework for all economic planning: energy markets will remain under structural pressure for the coming months, and oil-importing countries must anticipate this reality without being anesthetized by the deal's euphoria.

The 60 Days That Will Decide the Energy World's Future

The Critical Calendar: Nuclear, Sanctions, and Strait

Today is June 23, 2026. Since the memorandum was signed on June 19, the sixty-day countdown has begun. By approximately August 18, 2026, both parties will need to have concluded a definitive agreement on at least five major files: the future management of the Strait of Hormuz (who manages it and at what cost), the fate of Iran's highly enriched uranium stockpiles, the modalities of the definitive lifting of American and UN sanctions, the timeline of American force withdrawal from the region, and the situation in Lebanon involving Israel and Hezbollah. It is a genuinely staggering agenda for sixty days of negotiations.

Historical precedents do not invite optimism. The JCPOA negotiations of 2015 took several years. The American-Iranian discussions of the 2026 deal, initiated under Pakistani auspices for months, produced a page-and-a-half memorandum — what JD Vance himself called "a very general document." All the substantive work remains to be done. And if no agreement is found in sixty days, the deal can be extended by mutual consent — but nothing guarantees that consent will materialize if either party feels it is not receiving enough.

The Post-Sixty-Day Scenarios: Deal, Tolls, or New Crisis

Three scenarios take shape on the post-sixty-day horizon. The first — the most optimistic — is that of a comprehensive final deal, nuclear included, that would allow the total lifting of sanctions, the restitution of frozen assets, the normalization of maritime traffic, and a durable resolution of the strait. This scenario is possible but requires deep concessions from both sides that nothing in recent history makes easy to anticipate. The second scenario is that of Iranian tolls: failing an agreement, Iran imposes its "service fees" on the strait, creating a legally contested but geopolitically real situation, comparable to a toll booth on the world's energy highway. The third — the darkest — is a breakdown of the agreement, a resumption of hostilities, and a return of the oil crisis with markets even more disoriented than in February 2026.

Trump himself articulated the threat logic framing these scenarios: sixty days, and if no deal, the United States imposes its own tolls in the name of its role as "Guardian Angel" of Middle Eastern countries — and possibly strikes Iran "even harder." It is an aggressive negotiating position, typical of the Trumpian style. It has the advantage of creating real pressure on Tehran. It has the drawback of weakening Western alliances if perceived as an American license to militarize any international strait according to its own interests of the moment.

Conclusion: A Reopened Strait, an Uncertain Future

A Real but Unconfirmed Diplomatic Victory

The June 19, 2026 agreement is a tangible reality. After more than one hundred days of closure, the Strait of Hormuz is once again seeing commercial vessels traverse it. Oil prices have retreated significantly. Sailors stranded in the Gulf have begun to find their way back to open water. Trump has obtained a ceasefire declaration that allows him to project himself as the architect of peace in the Middle East. Iran has obtained immediate concessions — free oil, blockade lifted, perspective of reconstruction — that allow it to present the deal to its own population as a national victory despite four months of devastating war. These realities are undeniable and deserve to be recognized for what they are.

But the agreement's fragilities are equally real. The eighty mines obstructing the strait's central channel will not disarm themselves by magic. The nuclear negotiations now opening represent the most complex challenge in international diplomacy in decades. The question of future tolls is legally unresolved and politically explosive. Israel, absent from the deal, continues its operations in Lebanon and threatens to short-circuit the entire arrangement at any moment. This is not peace — it is a parenthesis in a conflict whose root causes remain intact.

What the West Must Learn and Defend

The most important geopolitical lesson of this crisis is simple but brutal: the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world's energy transits, was physically at the mercy of a state that borders it on one side and decided to use it as a weapon. The West spent decades building its structural dependence on this single passage. It took one hundred days of crisis and billions of dollars in economic damage to recall a truth that too many governments preferred to ignore. Energy diversification, the transition to renewables, investment in alternative routes — none of this is an ideological option, it is an imperative strategic necessity. The Strait of Hormuz, reopened today but fragile tomorrow, must be the last warning the West receives before it has truly acted.

Signed Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note: This report was written from verified and dated journalistic sources, including AP, BBC News, CNBC, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, Arab News, NPR, The Hindu, Euronews, and India Today, among others. All direct quotations are attributed to their original source. No fact has been invented or extrapolated without corroboration in the sources consulted. Numerical data (oil prices, number of mines, vessel volumes, American strategic reserve capacity) comes from primary sources or recognized news agencies. The editorial stance of this report is pro-Western, in the sense that it considers freedom of international navigation, the liberal world order, and nuclear non-proliferation to be values worth actively defending — not negotiable positions before the authoritarian regimes of Tehran, Moscow, or Beijing.

Sources

Primary sources

Associated Press — Iran and US reach a tentative deal to end the war and open Strait of Hormuz but challenges remain — June 15, 2026

CNBC — Iran to define Strait of Hormuz administration with Oman and Gulf states, senior U.S. officials say — June 17, 2026

BBC News — What's in the US-Iran agreement? — June 18, 2026

Secondary sources

Al Jazeera — Ghalibaf: US and Iran can work together to reopen Strait of Hormuz — June 23, 2026

Arab News — US says Hormuz to be toll-free under Iran deal — June 16, 2026

The Guardian — Hormuz disruption will continue until 80 mines blocking route are cleared — June 19, 2026

The Hindu — Trump threatens to charge U.S. tolls in Strait of Hormuz if final Iran deal not reached in 60 days — June 21, 2026

India Today — Trump floats US Hormuz tolls if Iran deal fails, cites 'Guardian Angel' role — June 21, 2026