In the news
On 26 and 27 June, the US and Iran engaged in tit-for-tat military strikes as Washington attacked Iran following Tehran’s drone strike on a vessel passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Both countries traded accusations of ceasefire violations.
On 28 June, President Trump threatened that "the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist" if Washington is forced to "militarily complete the job" it started. In response, Iran struck US bases in Kuwait and Bahrain
On the same day, US officials announced that the hostilities between the two have halted and that technical talks have resumed.
On 30 June, Iran rejected direct negotiations with the US, and Tehran’s top negotiator, Mohammed Baqer Qalibaf, stated that "The sovereignty of the Strait of Hormuz lies with Iran and Oman, and traffic in the Strait is subject to arrangements determined by Iran.” Reuters also cited Iran’s senior officials, stating that Tehran is deliberating the imposition of tolls for the transit of vessels through the strait by mid-August.
On 02 July, the talks in Doha concluded without a breakthrough and mediators stated that the focus was largely on the Strait of Hormuz and unfreezing Iran's funds.
Separately, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) stated that the only authorized routes through the Strait of Hormuz are those designated by the Islamic Republic.
Issues at large
1. Early threats to the ceasefire deal and persisting hostilities
The ceasefire established on 17 June, aimed at securing a 60-day halt to all hostilities to facilitate further negotiations, has been threatened from the very outset by violations from both sides. Repeated attacks and counterattacks have rendered the truce largely nominal, while an air of distrust continues to persist between Tehran and Washington, marked by Iran's rejection of direct talks and President Trump's repeated threats to annihilate Tehran. The continued violations of the ceasefire, Iran’s escalating demands over the Hormuz and the unrelenting Israel-Lebanon conflict in the background threatens the possibility of a comprehensive deal.
2. Iran’s bid for control over the Strait of Hormuz
The US-Iran interim agreement calls for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to commercial transit at pre-war levels, without the imposition of tolls or the threat of disruption. However, Iran has escalated its demands by seeking sovereign control over the strategic chokepoint, with the aim of consolidating both economic and military influence over the waterway. Tehran’s demands starkly contradict the provisions of the 14-point interim agreement. Further, the reopening of the Strait had been one of Washington's principal objectives and one of the few provisions implemented alongside the ceasefire. Tehran's renewed demands for control over the Strait, however, have emerged as a major point of contention and continue to fuel tensions in the ongoing negotiations.
3. The contradictory coexistence of ceasefire and violations
The US and Israel's war against Iran has revealed an unprecedented coexistence of nominal ceasefires and persistent violations. Despite the ceasefire agreement calling for a halt to hostilities to facilitate negotiations towards a comprehensive framework, repeated attacks continue to undermine the truce. Yet, these violations have not derailed the negotiations; instead, the diplomatic process continues under the shadow of ongoing hostilities. A similar pattern is evident in the Israel-Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon. This renders the ceasefire more nominal, simultaneously increasing the risk of a return to full-scale conflict. It also undermines the predictability as agreements are immediately followed by attacks and counterattacks, while discord at the negotiating table is mirrored by military escalations on the ground. Further, it threatens to establish a new diplomatic normal where agreements are routinely violated without significant political consequences, eroding respect for negotiated commitments.
In perspective
First, the Strait of Hormuz has emerged as the new axis of the conflict. At the outset of the war, the US and Israel justified military action against Iran primarily on the grounds of eliminating Tehran's nuclear threat, accompanied by rhetoric of regime change. However, Iran's decision to leverage its control over the Strait of Hormuz fundamentally shifted the conflict's focus. The blockade's severe economic repercussions, including disruptions to global energy markets and rising fuel prices even in Washington, became a key factor driving negotiations. While the ceasefire was expected to restore unhindered transit through the Strait, Tehran has since tightened its control, making the reopening of Hormuz without Iranian dominance Washington's principal objective. In the process, the initial emphasis on Iran's nuclear programme has been relegated to the background.
Second, Trump's unprecedented brand of diplomacy. The US-Iran war serves as a theatre not only for military confrontation but also unconventional means of diplomatic engagement. President Trump has repeatedly made claims of having “defeated” or “deposed” the Iranian regime and threats to annihilate the country's “entire civilization.” These threats are often followed by renewed negotiations and subsequent declarations that the talks had been successful, only to conclude in another round of coercive rhetoric. This oscillation between intimidation and unilateral declarations of victory marks an unusual departure from conventional diplomacy. Beyond complicating the negotiating process, it has dealt a significant blow to the norms of mutual respect and restraint that form the bedrock of diplomacy.
