Donald Trump says an agreement with Iran is “largely negotiated”, but Tehran’s response shows that the future of the Strait of Hormuz remains unresolved, leaving Europe exposed to continuing energy and shipping risk.
Donald Trump has said a memorandum of understanding with Iran is “largely negotiated” and could reopen the Strait of Hormuz, but Tehran’s response suggests that the most important part of any settlement remains unresolved.
The US President wrote on social media that final details of the deal were being discussed and would be announced shortly. The proposal, according to reporting on the emerging framework, is intended to end months of fighting, reopen the strategic waterway and lift the US blockade on Iranian ports.
The announcement followed months of disruption after the Strait of Hormuz became a central pressure point in the conflict that began with US and Israeli attacks on Iran in February. Iran has largely closed the strait to ships other than its own, while Washington later imposed a blockade on Iranian ports. The result has been one of the most serious disruptions to global energy flows in recent years.
Trump’s statement was immediately challenged by Iranian reporting. Fars, a semi-official Iranian news agency, said any agreement would still leave the Strait of Hormuz under Iranian management and described Trump’s assertion as inconsistent with reality. That distinction matters. Reopening the waterway is not the same as resolving who controls access, what conditions apply, and whether commercial shipping can move without renewed political risk.
For Europe, the issue is practical rather than rhetorical. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most important energy corridors. Any disruption affects oil and liquefied natural gas markets, shipping insurance, tanker availability and broader inflation expectations. Even if an agreement is announced, European governments and energy companies will need to judge whether it creates predictable access or merely reduces immediate military pressure.
The reported draft framework appears to involve a phased approach. Axios reported that the proposed arrangement would reopen the strait during a 60-day ceasefire extension, allow Iran to sell oil freely, lift the US blockade on Iranian ports, and begin negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme. Iran would also remove mines deployed in the strait, according to the report cited by Reuters.
That structure may reduce tensions, but it also shows the fragility of the process. A 60-day framework is not a permanent settlement. It would postpone several of the hardest issues, including Iran’s nuclear programme, sanctions relief, port access, maritime security guarantees and the role of regional states. If those questions are not resolved, the strait could remain a bargaining instrument even after a ceasefire is extended.
The nuclear element adds another layer. The draft reportedly includes Iranian commitments not to pursue nuclear weapons and to enter talks on uranium enrichment and stockpiles. Similar issues lay at the centre of the 2015 nuclear agreement, which Trump abandoned during his first term. Any new arrangement will therefore face scrutiny in Washington, Tehran, Israel and the Gulf over whether it is enforceable or simply a temporary de-escalation mechanism.
Regional diplomacy has become increasingly important. Pakistan has played a mediating role, while several Middle Eastern governments have supported efforts to reduce the conflict. The involvement of regional actors reflects the fact that the Hormuz crisis is not only a US-Iran dispute. It directly affects Gulf exporters, Asian energy importers and European states dependent on stable global markets.
There are also political limits in Washington. Republican critics have already objected to the emerging arrangement, arguing that it resembles earlier nuclear diplomacy with Iran. That domestic opposition matters because any deal requiring sanctions relief, asset releases or security assurances could be vulnerable to reversal if it lacks wider political support.
For Tehran, the priority appears to be sanctions relief, port access and recognition of its role in managing the strait. For Washington, the aim is to reopen a vital shipping route, contain the war and bring Iran back into negotiations over its nuclear programme. Those objectives overlap, but they are not identical.
Europe’s position is complicated. The EU has an interest in de-escalation, stable energy flows and renewed nuclear diplomacy. At the same time, European governments are not the main brokers of the current framework. That leaves them exposed to the consequences of any failure while having limited influence over the terms being negotiated.
The main question is therefore not whether Trump announces a deal. It is whether the agreement produces verifiable freedom of navigation, durable de-escalation and a credible process on Iran’s nuclear programme. Without those elements, the Strait of Hormuz may reopen formally while remaining politically vulnerable.
A temporary easing of the crisis would still be significant. It could reduce pressure on energy markets, lower shipping risk and create space for wider negotiations. But Europe should treat the emerging framework as a test of implementation, not as a settled peace arrangement.
Trump’s claim that a deal is near may prove accurate. The dispute over Hormuz management, however, shows that the most sensitive issues remain active. For European governments, companies and consumers, the risk is that a political announcement may come before the underlying security problem is resolved.
