The US and Iran have a deal on paper. At sea, the Strait of Hormuz is ‘chaotic’
US-Iran Agreement on Hormuz: A Fragile Peace Amid Maritime Chaos
The US and Iran have a deal – The United States and Iran have inked a maritime agreement to regulate traffic through the strategic Strait of Hormuz, yet the waterway remains a hub of tension and uncertainty. This narrow passage, critical for global oil and gas transportation, has seen a dramatic escalation in incidents despite the pact. On Thursday, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards issued a stern warning, stating that any vessel entering the strait without their authorization would face consequences. Hours later, a commercial ship was targeted by an Iranian drone, as confirmed by a U.S. official. This event has raised concerns about the effectiveness of the agreement, even as both nations claim to be working toward stability.
Uncertainty in the Ceasefire Pact
The deal, negotiated between the U.S. and Iran, aims to reduce hostilities in the region but includes ambiguous language that allows Iran to maintain control over the strait. While the agreement requires Iran to “make arrangements using its best efforts” for safe passage, the Revolutionary Guards have made it clear that they will enforce their own rules. This has led to conflicting directives, with ships navigating through different routes now facing potential threats from either side. The confusion has sparked debates about the true scope of the pact and whether it will hold in practice.
“The agreement’s vague terms create a gray area where Iran can assert dominance without clear boundaries,” said Dimitris Maniatis, CEO of Marisks, a maritime risk consultancy. “This leaves commercial operators in a dangerous limbo.”
The Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA), a new entity established by Iran, has introduced additional requirements for ships transiting the strait. Vessels must now submit an email authorization form to receive a “Safe Passage Guarantee,” which includes insurance coverage. However, the PGSA’s responsiveness has been questionable, with emails from CNN bouncing back, suggesting a lack of coordination. This bureaucratic hurdle has compounded the challenges faced by maritime traffic in the region.
Competing Routes and Strategic Tensions
Three distinct shipping lanes have emerged in the Strait of Hormuz, each controlled by different authorities. A southern route near Oman, a middle path following pre-conflict routes, and a northern corridor under Iranian oversight. This division has created a fragmented system, forcing ships to choose between compliance with Iranian demands or risk being intercepted by U.S. forces. The situation highlights the ongoing rivalry between the two nations, even as they attempt to reach a fragile truce.
The U.S. has expressed frustration with Iran’s actions, with President Trump labeling the drone attack on a commercial vessel as a “foolish violation” of the ceasefire. In response, American military strikes were launched against Iranian positions, though details remain unclear. Meanwhile, Iranian state media reported that Revolutionary Guards had retaliated, emphasizing their resolve to protect the strait from external interference. These incidents underscore the challenges in translating the agreement into a stable reality.
“The agreement is a symbolic step, but the practical execution remains shaky,” added Maniatis. “Without clear communication, the strait will continue to be a battleground for geopolitical interests.”
Experts warn that the agreement’s ambiguity could lead to prolonged disputes. Before the conflict, more than 20% of global oil and LNG passed through the strait, making it a vital artery for energy trade. Now, with competing rules and unpredictable threats, commercial operators face heightened risks. Some vessels fear retaliation for choosing non-Iranian routes, while others worry about financial penalties if they comply with Iranian demands. The outcome of these tensions will determine whether the pact succeeds in easing the chaos.
