The partial reopening of the Strait of Hormuz may become one of the most important signals of de-escalation in the current Middle East crisis. On Monday, two liquefied natural gas tankers left the strait, heading towards Pakistan and China. At first glance, this may appear to be a purely technical development in maritime traffic. In reality, however, the movement of these vessels carries far broader political and economic significance.

According to Reuters, the LNG tankers Fuwairit and Al Rayyan departed the area after loading cargo at Qatar’s Ras Laffan port. The first vessel, owned by Mitsui O.S.K. Lines and sailing under the Bahamian flag, is reportedly heading to Pakistan. The second, owned by QatarEnergy, is expected to deliver LNG to China by the end of June.

The fact that these ships were able to leave the Strait of Hormuz suggests that the situation around one of the world’s most sensitive maritime routes is beginning to stabilise. But this should not be mistaken for a full return to normality. The strait has not reopened in the political sense of the term. It has only partially “breathed out” after weeks of extreme tension.

The key question now is whether this is merely a tactical pause before a new escalation — or the beginning of a broader understanding between Washington and Tehran.

The main development on Monday was the reported “agreement in principle” between the United States and Iran on the future reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. According to American and international media reports, the sides are discussing a framework arrangement that would extend the ceasefire for 60 days and allow shipping to gradually recover over the next month.

Photo: Getty Images

This formula is important because it gives both sides room to step back without publicly admitting defeat. Iran can present the partial reopening as proof that the world must take its interests into account. The United States, meanwhile, can claim that pressure and military deterrence forced Tehran towards compromise.

Yet the situation remains extremely fragile. Tanker traffic is still limited. Many shipping companies continue to avoid the route. Insurance costs remain high. No major maritime operator will treat the strait as safe until there is a clear political mechanism, reliable security guarantees, and visible evidence that Iran will not again use the route as a tool of pressure.

For Tehran, the Strait of Hormuz is more than a waterway. It is one of the few instruments that allows Iran to compensate for America’s military superiority. Iran cannot defeat the United States in a direct conventional war, but it can create a crisis in a location where global energy flows are exceptionally vulnerable.

This is why the closure or disruption of Hormuz has such a powerful effect. A full blockade is not always necessary. The threat of missile attacks, mines, drone strikes, naval incidents, or even simple uncertainty can be enough to force tankers to stop, insurers to raise prices, and markets to react. In modern energy geopolitics, fear itself can become a weapon.

Before the crisis, around 20 per cent of global seaborne oil trade and a significant share of LNG supplies passed through the Strait of Hormuz. That made the route not merely a regional chokepoint, but a central artery of the global economy. When traffic through the strait dropped sharply, the consequences were immediately felt far beyond the Middle East.

Oil prices began reacting not only to battlefield developments, but also to every diplomatic signal. Reports of a possible US–Iran arrangement pushed prices lower because markets saw a chance that supplies could gradually resume. But this optimism remains cautious. The market understands that a single incident in the Gulf could reverse the trend within hours.

The political logic on both sides also points towards a pause. Iran has suffered losses it does not want to fully reveal. Tehran continues to emphasise the costs incurred by the United States and its allies, but the pressure on Iran’s own economy and military is likely to be significant. A prolonged confrontation around Hormuz would also risk alienating important partners, including China, which depends on stable energy flows from the Gulf.

Washington also has reasons to avoid further escalation. The military campaign is becoming increasingly controversial within the United States. At the same time, Iran has demonstrated that it is not as weak as some in Washington may have expected. A longer conflict could further damage America’s image, especially if it fails to restore stability in the Gulf quickly.

This is why the idea of a limited framework agreement appears logical. It allows both sides to freeze the most dangerous phase of the crisis while avoiding immediate concessions that would appear politically humiliating.

According to reports, the proposed arrangement may include a 60-day extension of the ceasefire and a gradual restoration of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz within 30 days. Other reported elements are far more ambitious. The Washington Post has suggested that a possible memorandum could include a halt to military operations by the United States and its allies on all fronts, including Lebanon, while Iran would commit to permanently abandoning the development of nuclear weapons and destroying its stockpiles of enriched uranium.

If such terms are indeed being discussed, this would mean that the Strait of Hormuz is no longer being treated as a separate maritime issue. It has become part of a much broader geopolitical bargain involving Iran’s nuclear programme, the regional military balance, US commitments, and the future security architecture of the Middle East.

But this is also what makes the process so vulnerable. The more issues that are added to the negotiating package, the easier it becomes for the entire structure to collapse. Any disagreement over monitoring, guarantees, sanctions, Iran’s regional role, or the status of armed groups in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen could derail the process.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei has already made it clear that Tehran does not want the management of the Strait of Hormuz to be discussed as part of a direct agreement with the United States. According to him, this issue must be handled by the countries of the region. This statement reflects Iran’s broader position: Tehran wants to avoid creating the impression that Washington has the right to determine the rules of navigation in the Gulf.

At the same time, Iran wants the world to understand that regional logistics cannot be secure if Iranian interests are ignored. This is the central message Tehran has sought to convey throughout the crisis. The Strait of Hormuz has become not only a military lever, but also a political symbol.

For the United States, the challenge is different. Washington must demonstrate that it can protect global trade routes and prevent Iran from turning Hormuz into a permanent instrument of blackmail. But it must do so without being drawn into a war that could prove costly, unpopular, and strategically uncertain.

This is why the current moment is so delicate. The partial reopening of the strait is a positive signal, but not yet a breakthrough. It shows that both sides are testing the possibility of de-escalation. It does not prove that they are ready for a durable settlement.

As of 25 May 2026, the Strait of Hormuz remains one of the most dangerous and strategically important points in world politics. Formally, the crisis is linked to Iran and the regional confrontation involving the United States and Israel. In reality, it has already become a global issue affecting energy markets, shipping routes, insurance costs, and perceptions of international security.

Photo: Getty Images

The broader lesson is clear: the era of guaranteed security for global trade routes is over. A regional conflict is now enough to put the world economy on alert. The Strait of Hormuz has demonstrated that geography can still outweigh technology, military superiority, and diplomatic rhetoric.

For now, the strait has partially reopened. LNG tankers are moving again. Markets have received a signal of hope. Diplomats have gained time. But the underlying crisis has not disappeared.

The coming weeks will show whether this is the first step towards a serious US–Iran understanding — or merely a short pause before the next escalation. In either case, Hormuz has already changed the conversation. It has reminded the world that a narrow maritime passage can still hold the global economy hostage.

By Tural Heybatov

News.Az