The US and Iran have a deal on paper. At sea, the Strait of Hormuz is ‘chaotic’

Strait of Hormuz: A Crucial Waterway in the US-Iran Ceasefire Test

The US and Iran have a deal – Amid ongoing diplomatic efforts between the United States and Iran to end their prolonged conflict, the Strait of Hormuz has become a focal point of tension. This narrow maritime passage, strategically vital for global energy trade, is now a battleground for competing interests. On Thursday, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards issued a stark warning to vessels traversing the strait: “If any vessel attempts to transit without our permission or outside the designated route, it is responsible for any consequences.” The statement underscores the Iranian military’s assertion of control over the waterway, even as a formal agreement between the two nations seeks to establish stability.

The First Test of the Agreement

Just hours after the warning, a dramatic incident unfolded. A Singapore-flagged container ship, the *Ever Lovely*, was struck by an Iranian drone, according to a US official who shared details with CNN. This attack marked the first instance of a vessel being targeted since the ceasefire pact was signed, raising questions about the effectiveness of the agreement. President Donald Trump swiftly condemned the incident, calling it a “foolish violation of our Ceasefire Agreement” on Friday. His remarks highlighted the perceived breach of trust by Iran, even as the US retaliated with military strikes on Iranian positions near the strait.

“If any vessel attempts to transit in the Strait without our permission…or outside of the designated route, it is responsible for any consequences.”

The US military’s response included targeted strikes against Iranian military targets in the region, though officials emphasized that these actions do not signal a return to full-scale combat. “The strikes are not a sign of escalation into major operations, at least for now,” one US official stated, aiming to reassure stakeholders of the agreement’s continued viability. Meanwhile, Iranian state media, Press TV, reported that the Revolutionary Guards had retaliated by targeting US military installations in response to the American strikes.

Conflicting Control and Uncertainty

Despite the agreement’s intent to ease tensions, the situation at sea remains unpredictable. The ceasefire stipulates that Iran will “make arrangements using its best efforts” to ensure the safe passage of commercial vessels through the strait, a critical corridor for a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas. However, the reality on the water is far more complex. The Revolutionary Guards have effectively claimed authority over the strait, designating routes and imposing conditions that favor their strategic interests.

A newly established body, the Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA), has further complicated matters by introducing formal requirements for maritime traffic. The PGSA’s rules demand that ships complete an email authorization form to receive a “Safe Passage Guarantee,” which includes insurance coverage. While the authority has not yet confirmed the details of its operations, CNN’s attempts to contact it revealed that emails to the PGSA were bouncing back, suggesting bureaucratic challenges or intentional opacity.

Three Routes, One Waterway

As a result of these overlapping claims, three distinct routes have emerged within the 21-mile-wide strait. One passes through Omani waters, another through the central channel, and the third is under Iranian jurisdiction. This fragmentation of control has left vessel operators grappling with a difficult decision: choose a route that might avoid conflict or accept the risks of Iranian oversight. “All this is very confusing for safely navigating those waters,” Dimitris Maniatis, CEO of maritime risk consultancy Marisks, told CNN. His words reflect the growing uncertainty among traders and the potential for operational errors that could escalate into confrontations.

The confusion is not merely logistical. It also mirrors the broader geopolitical dynamics of the agreement. Iran’s insistence on defining the strait’s future administration—through collaboration with Oman—has given Tehran a formal role in managing the waterway. This provision, though vaguely worded, signals Iran’s ambition to retain influence over the passage, even as it nominally agrees to allow commercial traffic. The situation has created a delicate balance, where ships must navigate both the physical dangers of the strait and the intricate web of political agreements.

Trade Disruptions and Dilemmas for Operators

Shipping companies are reporting that the lack of clarity is hindering the recovery of trade volumes to pre-war levels. “The current environment is extremely dangerous,” Maniatis added, highlighting the dual threats of aerial drones, patrol boats, and uncharted political waters. Vessels that opt for non-Iranian routes face the risk of being attacked, while those using the Iranian-controlled path worry about the possibility of Western sanctions if the agreement collapses.

“Global shipping wants to avoid dealing with the Iranians because there is a fear that they may run a risk of US sanctions in the future,” Maniatis told CNN, noting the cautious stance of the current US administration. He referenced earlier statements suggesting that any payment to the Iranian regime could be grounds for sanctions, deepening the dilemma for operators.

Iran’s demand for toll fees initially sparked concern, but the nation has since indicated it will not immediately impose charges. Instead, it aims to collect fees for maritime services and introduce an environmental tax on ships. This shift from direct tolls to broader financial mechanisms may reflect a strategic effort to maintain leverage without provoking immediate retaliation. However, the dual system of control—where different authorities claim jurisdiction over portions of the strait—remains a source of friction.

Broader Implications for Global Trade

The Strait of Hormuz’s status as a “chaotic” corridor has significant implications for international commerce. The waterway’s strategic importance cannot be overstated: it serves as a lifeline for global energy markets, with over 20% of the world’s oil supply passing through its narrow channels daily. Disruptions to this flow, even if temporary, can ripple across economies, affecting energy prices and supply chains.

As the US and Iran continue negotiations, the challenge lies in aligning their visions of cooperation with the practical realities of maritime operations. The competing routes and conflicting demands illustrate how the agreement’s terms are being interpreted differently by the two sides. For the US, the goal is to ensure unobstructed passage, while for Iran, the focus is on maintaining control and extracting economic benefits. This divergence has created a situation where the agreement’s promise of peace is tested in real-time by the unpredictable dynamics at sea.

Meanwhile, Bahrain reported an Iranian drone attack on its territory early Saturday morning, though the target remains unclear. This incident adds another layer of complexity to the situation, as neighboring nations also grapple with the implications of the strait’s contested status. The broader region is now a theater of both military and economic maneuvering, with the stakes high for global energy security and international relations.

Conclusion: A Fragile Balance

The Strait of Hormuz stands as a symbol of the fragile balance between diplomacy and conflict. While the US-Iran agreement seeks to establish a framework for peace, the actions on the water reveal that control and cooperation are not yet assured. The evolving routes, the PGSA’s rules, and the drone attacks all point to a reality where the strait remains a contested space, even as leaders on both sides strive to stabilize it. For now, the chaos at sea persists, challenging the very principles of the agreement that aims to end the war.