Oil returns to Strait of Hormuz, but Israeli strikes in Lebanon test US-Iran peace deal

Oil shipments began moving through the Strait of Hormuz on June 18, 2026, hours after President of the United States Donald Trump and President of Iran Masoud Pezeshkian signed an interim agreement intended to end nearly four months of war. Vice President of the United States JD Vance said vessels carrying about 12.5 million barrels of crude oil had passed through the strategic waterway overnight, providing the first evidence that one of the agreement’s most economically important provisions was being implemented.

The reopening offered immediate relief to energy markets after fighting and restrictions around the Strait of Hormuz disrupted a maritime corridor that normally carries about one-fifth of global oil supplies. Brent crude futures fell by another 2 percent to below $78 a barrel, reaching their lowest level since the conflict began on February 28.

The diplomatic breakthrough remained under pressure, however, because Israeli forces continued operations in Lebanon even though the interim agreement calls for the permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. Israeli airstrikes killed three people in the southern Lebanese towns of Kfartebnit and Zebdine on June 18, while Israel published a map showing an expanded military control zone extending deeper into southern Lebanon.

The contrast created the first major test of the agreement. Maritime traffic was beginning to recover, but the conflict in Lebanon continued, more than one million Lebanese remained displaced and Israel made clear that it was not prepared to withdraw from areas it considered necessary for its security.

How did the United States-Iran interim agreement reopen the Strait of Hormuz?

The 14-point Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding commits the United States and Iran to terminate military operations and negotiate a final settlement within 60 days. The agreement also covers forces and allies involved in the conflict, with Lebanon explicitly included in its provisions on ending hostilities and respecting territorial sovereignty.

Under the interim framework, the United States is required to begin removing its naval blockade and other impediments affecting Iran immediately. The blockade is supposed to be fully lifted within 30 days, while vessel traffic is expected to move progressively towards levels recorded before the war.

Iran is required to use its best efforts to ensure the safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz without charging ships during the initial 60-day period. The agreement acknowledges that mines and other technical or military obstacles may need to be removed before traffic returns fully to normal.

The passage of vessels carrying approximately 12.5 million barrels of crude showed that commercial movement had resumed quickly after the agreement was signed. Three Saudi Arabian-flagged supertankers were also among the vessels reported to have crossed the Strait of Hormuz after the deal took effect.

The initial movement does not mean that shipping conditions have normalised. Shipowners, insurers and charterers still require confidence that mines have been cleared, naval confrontations will not resume and vessels will not become targets if negotiations deteriorate.

Iran also intends to discuss the future administration and maritime services of the Strait of Hormuz with Oman and other Gulf coastal states. That provision could become contentious because Washington has said passage should remain toll-free, while Tehran wants to retain a role in the waterway’s future management.

How does the Strait of Hormuz reopening change immediate energy and shipping risks?

The Strait of Hormuz is the principal maritime route linking the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and international markets. Oil and liquefied natural gas exports from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Iran depend heavily on the channel.

Disruption to the waterway therefore affects countries far beyond the Middle East. Import-dependent economies in Asia are particularly exposed because China, India, Japan and South Korea receive significant volumes of Gulf energy through the Strait of Hormuz.

The reopening reduced the immediate threat of a prolonged physical supply disruption. The fall in Brent crude prices reflected expectations that more oil could reach international markets and that shipping delays might gradually ease.

The market response was nevertheless conditional. Energy prices had risen during the conflict because traders feared a sustained closure, damage to production facilities and the possibility of fighting spreading across Gulf export infrastructure. Those risks have not disappeared merely because the first vessels crossed safely.

Shipping companies must assess whether the security commitments will be enforced throughout the 60-day negotiating period. Insurance costs, vessel availability and crew safety considerations could remain elevated even as the number of transits increases.

The agreement also requires the United States Department of the Treasury to issue waivers covering Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and related services. Those waivers could allow Iran to increase legal exports and access banking, insurance and transportation services that had been constrained by sanctions.

Any sustained increase in Iranian exports would add another source of supply to international markets. The scale and speed of that increase will depend on the implementation of waivers, the condition of Iranian export infrastructure and whether buyers believe the sanctions relief will survive the negotiations.

Why are Israeli strikes in Lebanon testing the credibility of the new peace framework?

The interim agreement states that military operations must end on all fronts, including Lebanon, and that Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty must be protected. Israel was not a signatory to the agreement and was excluded from the United States-Iran negotiations.

Israel has rejected demands for an immediate withdrawal from southern Lebanon. Israeli forces entered Lebanon in March after Hezbollah fired rockets across the border in support of Iran, and Israel has described the territory under its control as a security zone intended to protect northern Israeli communities.

On June 18, Israel released a map showing that its military control zone had expanded several kilometres deeper into Lebanon. The area included locations near Nabatieh and extended north of the Litani River, moving beyond the boundaries displayed in an earlier Israeli map.

An Israeli military official said operations could also continue beyond the mapped zone when threats to Israeli soldiers or civilians were identified. That position directly challenges the assumption that the interim agreement has already ended military activity across the region.

Israeli strikes on Kfartebnit and Zebdine killed three people on the same day that oil traffic resumed through the Strait of Hormuz. Israeli drones were also heard over Beirut and its southern suburbs, reinforcing Lebanese concerns that the agreement had not produced an enforceable halt to hostilities.

Hezbollah has continued attacking Israeli positions in southern Lebanon, including through explosive drones that killed or injured Israeli troops. Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem has rejected the legitimacy of Israeli-controlled security zones and maintained that Israeli forces must leave Lebanese territory.

The continuing exchanges demonstrate that the Lebanon conflict cannot be halted solely through commitments made by Washington and Tehran. Implementation requires decisions by Israel, Hezbollah and the Lebanese government, each of which has separate security, political and territorial objectives.

Why has Lebanon become the central enforcement test for Donald Trump and Masoud Pezeshkian?

Donald Trump has presented the interim agreement as a framework capable of ending the wider regional war rather than only stopping direct hostilities between the United States and Iran. Including Lebanon expanded the scope of the agreement but also made implementation more difficult.

Iran had consistently maintained that any settlement should address Lebanon. The inclusion of Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity represented an important Iranian objective because Hezbollah has long been Tehran’s most influential regional ally.

Israel views Hezbollah’s armed presence near its northern border as an unacceptable security threat. Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu has said Israel must maintain a security strip in southern Lebanon for as long as Israeli security requirements make it necessary.

The disagreement has created unusually visible tension between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. Donald Trump has criticised the extent of Israeli destruction in Lebanon, including the demolition of entire buildings during operations targeting individual Hezbollah members.

Israel and the United States are holding difficult discussions over whether Israeli troops can remain approximately 10 kilometres inside southern Lebanon. Israel has indicated that it will not abandon its military position without guarantees addressing Hezbollah’s weapons and ability to attack northern Israel.

There has been no public indication that the United States has threatened to restrict military assistance or delay weapons deliveries to compel an Israeli withdrawal. Without such leverage, criticism from Washington may not be sufficient to change Israeli policy.

United States-mediated talks between Israel and Lebanon are expected to take place in Washington. Israel is seeking the disarmament of Hezbollah, while Lebanon is seeking the withdrawal of Israeli forces from its territory.

The success of the wider peace effort may consequently depend on whether those negotiations establish a credible security arrangement for southern Lebanon. Failure would leave one of the interim agreement’s most explicit commitments unfulfilled.

What unresolved nuclear and sanctions disputes remain inside the 60-day negotiations?

The interim agreement ends immediate fighting but postpones many of the most difficult questions. Negotiators must still address Iran’s nuclear programme, uranium stockpile, enrichment activities, sanctions relief, frozen assets and future regional security arrangements.

Iran reaffirmed that it would not develop or acquire nuclear weapons. The agreement proposes resolving the status of Iran’s enriched uranium through a mutually accepted mechanism, with on-site dilution under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision identified as a minimum option.

The parties have not settled whether Iran will continue enriching uranium. The United States has previously demanded that Iran accept zero enrichment, while Iran has maintained that peaceful uranium enrichment is a sovereign right that it will not permanently surrender.

The level of international inspection also remains unresolved. A final agreement would need to determine whether inspectors receive access comparable with, or greater than, the access provided under the 2015 nuclear agreement.

Sanctions represent another potential obstacle. Iran wants comprehensive relief and access to frozen funds, while the United States has sought to connect longer-term sanctions removal to Iranian compliance.

The interim framework commits the United States to issue immediate oil-export waivers and begin procedures for making frozen Iranian funds usable. It also proposes at least $300 billion for Iranian reconstruction and economic development, although the implementation mechanism must still be negotiated.

The agreement requires the United States and Iran to establish a mechanism for monitoring compliance. A final deal is also expected to receive endorsement through a binding resolution of the United Nations Security Council.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has stated that decisions concerning war and negotiations fall under the authority of Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei and the Supreme National Security Council. The Iranian negotiating position will therefore depend on approval beyond the presidency.

What developments will determine whether the interim agreement becomes durable?

United States and Iranian representatives are expected to begin the formal 60-day negotiating period at the Buergenstock resort in Switzerland. JD Vance is expected to represent the United States at the initial ceremony confirming the interim accord.

The first measure of progress will be whether commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz continues to increase without attacks, seizures or new restrictions. Mine clearance, insurance availability and naval de-escalation will determine how quickly shipping returns to pre-war levels.

The second measure will be whether hostilities in Lebanon decline. Continued Israeli airstrikes, Hezbollah attacks or an expansion of Israel’s occupation zone would weaken confidence that the agreement applies beyond the direct United States-Iran confrontation.

The third measure will be whether Washington and Tehran can narrow their differences over uranium enrichment, inspections and sanctions. These issues have undermined previous negotiations and cannot be resolved solely through general commitments to avoid nuclear weapons.

The final measure will be whether the United States can align Israeli actions with an agreement that Israel did not negotiate or sign. Israel’s continuing operations in Lebanon show that a bilateral understanding between Washington and Tehran does not automatically bind every military actor involved in the regional conflict.

The Strait of Hormuz reopening is therefore a meaningful but limited first step. It has reduced immediate pressure on global energy supplies, but the continued violence in Lebanon shows that the transition from an interim memorandum to an enforceable regional settlement remains incomplete.

What are the key takeaways from the Strait of Hormuz reopening and Lebanon strikes?

• Commercial vessels carrying about 12.5 million barrels of crude oil passed through the Strait of Hormuz after the United States and Iran signed an interim agreement, providing the first evidence that maritime traffic was beginning to resume.
• Brent crude futures fell by approximately 2 percent to below $78 a barrel as markets responded to the reopening, although shipowners and insurers still face uncertainty over mines, security guarantees and the durability of the agreement.
• The 14-point agreement establishes a 60-day negotiating period and calls for the permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, while requiring respect for Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.
• Israeli airstrikes killed three people in southern Lebanon on June 18, while Israel published a map showing an expanded military control zone, demonstrating that the agreement had not produced an immediate regional cessation of hostilities.
• Israel has entered difficult discussions with the United States over maintaining troops approximately 10 kilometres inside Lebanon, while planned talks require reconciling Israeli demands for Hezbollah’s disarmament with Lebanese demands for an Israeli withdrawal.
• The interim framework authorises waivers for Iranian oil exports and proposes sanctions relief, access to frozen assets and at least $300 billion for reconstruction, but the implementation of those commitments remains subject to further negotiations.
• Iran’s nuclear programme remains one of the most difficult unresolved issues because the two sides must still determine the future of enriched uranium, uranium enrichment, international inspections and the sequence of sanctions removal.
• The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz has reduced immediate global energy risk, but the agreement’s long-term credibility will depend on whether fighting ends in Lebanon and whether all regional actors follow its security provisions.