A strait path to power

The emerging US-Iran framework appears designed to end the conflict and stabilize the Gulf while postponing the most contentious nuclear issues to a second phase of negotiations. In the process, Iran has leveraged its influence over the Strait of Hormuz to gain a stronger voice in shaping the region's future security architecture. Whether the agreement evolves into a lasting settlement may depend as much on Israeli objections and regional flashpoints as on the nuclear talks themselves.

• The Geneva memorandum pauses the war and reopens Hormuz, while deferring the hardest nuclear issues to a second phase of negotiations.
• Iran emerged from the conflict with increased leverage, using its influence over the Strait of Hormuz to secure a role in shaping the Gulf's future security order.
• Israel remains the biggest risk to the framework, viewing the deal as granting Iran economic and political gains before key nuclear questions are resolved.

Strait to Power

The current U.S.-Iran conflict began in the middle of negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. It is ending with a broader discussion about regional stability, the future security architecture of the Gulf, and the Strait of Hormuz.

If the reported terms are accurate, the memorandum scheduled for signing in Geneva does not resolve the longstanding disputes over enrichment, uranium stockpiles, inspections, sanctions, and verification. Those issues have been deferred to a second phase of negotiations expected to last approximately 60 days.

Instead, the current agreement focuses on more immediate objectives: ending the conflict, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, stabilizing energy markets, and creating conditions for future nuclear negotiations.

While the full text has not been published, both sides appear to be getting something they urgently need. The United States secures an end to hostilities, the reopening of the world's most important energy chokepoint, reduced pressure on global energy markets, and an Iranian commitment to negotiate over its nuclear program and refrain from pursuing a nuclear weapon. Iran, in turn, receives sanctions relief, access to frozen assets, an end to military pressure, and perhaps most importantly, a seat at the table in shaping the regional order that emerges from the conflict.

Strait Up Negotiations

Iran has always understood the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz. What appears to have changed during this conflict is Tehran's confidence in its ability to control it.

For decades, many assumed that any Iranian attempt to disrupt the Strait would be temporary and quickly reversed through military pressure. Instead, the conflict demonstrated that Iran could exert effective influence over one of the world's most important maritime chokepoints long enough to force the issue onto the global diplomatic agenda.

The experience appears to have reshaped Iranian thinking.

Iranian officials are reportedly increasingly discussing the new order of the Strait. State-linked media, parliamentarians, and officials have floated proposals ranging from security arrangements and transit management systems to service fees and transit charges. According to reporting by Fars News, no tolls would be imposed during the initial 60-day negotiation period, after which discussions regarding a future framework for transit fees and maritime administration could take place with Oman and other regional actors.

Whether any such proposal ultimately materializes remains uncertain. The United States and its partners continue to support freedom of navigation and unrestricted commercial access through international waterways, and significant legal and political obstacles stand in the way of a formal tolling regime.

But Iran is not interesteding in giving up control of the waters.  Iran has concluded that influence over the Strait provides a form of leverage distinct from its nuclear program. Nuclear capabilities create diplomatic pressure. Hormuz creates economic pressure. The conflict demonstrated how quickly disruptions in the Strait became a central concern for governments, energy markets, and global commerce.

The broader consequence is that Iran's position in the region appears to have changed with this control. Whether by design or necessity, Iran has moved from being the subject of regional negotiations to becoming one of the actors shaping them.

‍

Israel's Strait Up Objection

Israel remains the largest risk to the implementation of this deal.

From Israel's perspective, the current memorandum could provide Iran with sanctions relief, economic normalization, and a larger role in regional affairs before the most difficult nuclear questions have been resolved. More importantly, it may signal a shift in Iran's position within the regional hierarchy—from a state to be contained to a state whose cooperation is considered necessary for regional stability.

The next phase of negotiations is expected to focus on enrichment, inspections, uranium stockpiles, verification mechanisms, and sanctions. Traditionally, many of the benefits contemplated under such agreements are exchanged for progress on those issues. In this case, however, Iran could receive significant economic and political benefits before the most difficult nuclear questions are settled. Israeli policymakers may therefore view the framework as front-loading concessions while deferring the toughest negotiations to a later stage.

That concern is likely amplified by recent experience. The current conflict itself erupted in the middle of nuclear negotiations, reinforcing skepticism in Jerusalem about whether diplomacy alone can produce a durable solution. If Israeli policymakers conclude that the current framework strengthens Iran economically and politically before the most difficult nuclear issues are resolved, they may have incentives to shape events before a final settlement is reached.

Recent events in Lebanon have already demonstrated how quickly military escalation can complicate diplomacy. The Israeli strike on Beirut occurred at a particularly sensitive moment in the negotiations and was viewed in Tehran as a direct challenge to the emerging framework. Iranian officials have repeatedly indicated that Lebanon forms part of the broader regional understanding underpinning the agreement, meaning developments there could have consequences well beyond the immediate battlefield.

This remains one of the largest uncertainties facing the framework. Several Israeli officials have publicly signaled reservations about aspects of the agreement, particularly those affecting Israel's freedom of action in Lebanon and elsewhere. From Israel's perspective, the arrangement may leave key security concerns unresolved. From Iran's perspective, renewed military activity in Lebanon could be interpreted as an attempt to weaken or circumvent the broader agreement.

Regardless of intent, the result is the same: any renewed confrontation involving Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, or Iranian-linked groups could undermine the ceasefire framework and disrupt negotiations before a final agreement is reached.

The next 60 days will determine whether Washington and Tehran can bridge their differences on the nuclear issue. More broadly, they will determine whether the current memorandum can evolve into a durable regional settlement.

The war began in the middle of negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. It ends with both sides negotiating over something larger: the future security architecture of the Gulf. Whether by design or necessity, Iran has moved from being the subject of regional negotiations to becoming one of the actors helping shape them. That may ultimately become the most consequential legacy of the agreement.

‍