Iran's threat was a weapon you could only use once
Days after the United States and Iran signed a fragile interim agreement, the architecture of that peace is already straining under the weight of unresolved violence. Iran's Revolutionary Guard has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz — the narrow passage through which a fifth of the world's energy flows — citing continued Israeli strikes in Lebanon and what Tehran calls American failure to honor ceasefire commitments. As diplomats gathered in Switzerland to build something more durable from this brittle foundation, the ancient tension between negotiation and war reasserted itself: agreements made in conference rooms remain hostage to decisions made on the ground.
- Iran's Revolutionary Guard warned ships away from the Strait of Hormuz, threatening to choke off one-fifth of global oil and gas supplies in retaliation for Israeli strikes and what Tehran calls US ceasefire violations.
- Israeli warplanes struck southern Lebanon on Saturday killing at least 16 people, following Friday strikes that killed 83 — all while a ceasefire was reportedly in effect, with neither Israel nor Hezbollah having formally signed the interim deal.
- VP Vance flew to Switzerland alongside Kushner and Witkoff to push negotiations forward, but Iran's foreign ministry signaled that progress depended entirely on the US first demonstrating it would honor its existing obligations.
- The Pentagon denied the strait was closed and Trump declared no tolls would be charged during the 60-day window, but Iran's leverage over global shipping lanes remained real regardless of who technically controls the waterway.
- With a regional war that has already killed at least 7,000 people and a 60-day deadline to produce a comprehensive nuclear accord — a task that took 18 months in 2015 — observers warn the entire framework may collapse before it can be built.
The ink on the US-Iran interim agreement was barely dry when the cracks appeared. On Saturday, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned ships to stay clear of the Strait of Hormuz — a chokepoint that, before the war, carried roughly one-fifth of the world's oil and liquefied gas. Tehran framed the threat as retaliation for Israeli strikes continuing across southern Lebanon and what it described as American failure to uphold ceasefire commitments.
The timing was particularly fraught. Vice President JD Vance had boarded a plane for Switzerland, where talks were set to begin Sunday aimed at transforming the fragile 60-day agreement into a comprehensive nuclear deal. He traveled alongside negotiators Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, and expressed confidence the ceasefire would hold. Yet Israeli warplanes had struck southern Lebanon that same Saturday, killing at least 16 people in the Nabatieh district — this despite reports of a renewed ceasefire that was supposed to be holding.
The violence had escalated sharply the day before. A Hezbollah strike killed four Israeli soldiers, including a senior officer. Israel responded with waves of attacks killing 83 people across southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley. Hezbollah said it had acted only after Israel violated a previous ceasefire by advancing into Lebanese territory. A Hezbollah parliamentarian said the group would honor a ceasefire if Israel did the same — but neither side had formally declared one in effect.
Trump moved quickly to address the Hormuz threat, declaring on social media that no tolls would be charged on passing ships during the interim period, while also hinting the US might impose tolls if talks failed. The Pentagon denied the strait had been closed, with a US Central Command spokesperson noting that traffic continued to flow — though Iran's capacity to disrupt shipping there remained a potent source of leverage regardless.
Iran's foreign ministry signaled that little progress should be expected until the US demonstrated it was fulfilling its obligations. The structural problem was plain: the interim deal required a cessation of hostilities on all fronts and Iran reopening Hormuz in exchange for the US lifting its naval blockade — but neither Israel nor Hezbollah had signed anything. Netanyahu had vowed to keep forces in Lebanon until all threats were eliminated; Hezbollah refused to stand down unless Israel committed to withdrawing.
The 2015 nuclear deal had taken more than 18 months to negotiate. This agreement gave diplomats 60 days. With a regional war that has already killed at least 7,000 people still burning, and Iran's Hormuz threat hanging over global energy markets, the deal remained exactly what it had always been: a fragile structure built on ground that had not yet stopped moving.
The interim peace agreement between the United States and Iran, signed just days earlier, was already showing cracks. On Saturday, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps issued a stark warning: ships should not approach the Strait of Hormuz. The move was framed as retaliation for Israeli strikes continuing across southern Lebanon and what Tehran characterized as American failure to uphold its side of the ceasefire bargain. Before the war, that narrow waterway had carried roughly one-fifth of the world's oil and liquefied gas—a chokepoint whose closure would ripple through global energy markets within hours.
The threat came at a precarious moment. Negotiations in Switzerland were scheduled to begin Sunday, meant to transform the fragile 60-day interim agreement into something more durable: a comprehensive nuclear deal. Vice President JD Vance had already boarded a plane at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, telling reporters he expected to spend only a day or two in Emmen, near Lucerne, where he hoped to make progress on both the nuclear issue and the Lebanon ceasefire. Yet the ground beneath these talks was shifting. Israeli warplanes had struck southern Lebanon on Saturday, killing at least 16 people according to local authorities, who reported transporting the dead and wounded from the Nabatieh district since early morning hours. This came despite reports of a renewed ceasefire that was supposed to be holding.
The violence had escalated sharply on Friday. Four Israeli soldiers, including a senior officer, were killed when a Hezbollah strike hit their tank. Israel responded with waves of attacks that killed 83 people across southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley. Hezbollah, which maintains close ties to Iran, said it had struck only after Israel violated a previous ceasefire by advancing into Lebanese territory. The Israeli military countered that it was responding to overnight projectile launches from the militant group. Hassan Fadlallah, a Hezbollah parliamentarian, said his organization would abide by a ceasefire if Israel did the same, but he emphasized that what mattered was preventing Israeli attacks on Lebanese villages and new territorial occupation. The group had not formally declared that a ceasefire was actually in effect.
Donald Trump moved quickly to address the Hormuz threat. He declared on social media that no tolls would be charged on ships passing through the strait during the 60-day interim period. Yet he also raised the possibility that the US might impose tolls if negotiations failed—a threat wrapped inside a reassurance. The Pentagon denied that Iran had actually closed the waterway. Navy Captain Tim Hawkins, a US Central Command spokesperson, told Reuters that traffic continued to flow and that American forces were monitoring the situation. "Iran does not control the Strait of Hormuz," he said, a statement that was technically true but also beside the point: Iran's ability to disrupt shipping there had long been a source of leverage in regional disputes.
Vance arrived in Switzerland on Sunday morning, his office confirmed, as part of a delegation that included negotiators Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, who had already been handling technical elements of the talks. Pakistan, serving as the key mediator, said the negotiations would proceed as planned. Reports from Tehran suggested that a delegation of top Iranian officials had departed to participate. Vance expressed confidence that the ceasefire would hold and said he had seen no evidence that the strait was closed. Yet Iran's foreign ministry spokesperson, Esmail Baghaei, signaled that little progress should be expected until the US demonstrated it was fulfilling its obligations under the deal. "This trip is therefore about demanding that the other side fulfil its obligations," he said.
The underlying problem was structural. The interim agreement called for a cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon, and required Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for the US lifting its naval blockade. But neither Israel nor Hezbollah had signed the deal. Benjamin Netanyahu had vowed to keep Israeli forces in southern Lebanon until any threat to Israel was eliminated. Hezbollah refused to halt its attacks unless Israel committed to withdrawing—a condition Iran said was also essential. The 2015 nuclear deal, which Trump had scrapped during his first term, had taken more than 18 months to negotiate. The new agreement gave negotiators 60 days to produce a comprehensive nuclear accord, though that timeline could be extended. Many observers warned it would be nearly impossible to resolve such a complex issue in two months, especially with violence in Lebanon threatening to unravel the entire framework.
The regional war that had prompted these negotiations had already killed at least 7,000 people and sent energy prices soaring. The continuing hostilities and diplomatic friction over the planned talks had fueled deep skepticism about whether any lasting end could be found. Iran's threat to close Hormuz, whether carried out or merely brandished, was a reminder that the deal remained hostage to events on the ground—and that the ground was still very much in motion.
Citas Notables
Iran does not control the Strait of Hormuz. Traffic continues to flow, and US forces are monitoring the situation to ensure this remains the case.— Navy Captain Tim Hawkins, US Central Command
This trip is therefore about demanding that the other side fulfil its obligations.— Esmail Baghaei, Iran's foreign ministry spokesperson
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why would Iran threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz if they just signed a deal that requires them to keep it open?
Because the deal only works if both sides believe the other is holding up their end. When Israel kept striking Lebanon despite the ceasefire, Iran saw that as the US failing to enforce its own agreement. The threat was a way of saying: if you won't make Israel stop, we won't keep our promises either.
But closing Hormuz would hurt Iran too, wouldn't it? That's a lot of economic pain to inflict on yourself.
Absolutely. That's what makes it such a dangerous threat. It's a weapon you can only use once, and it destroys the user along with the target. But that's also why it carries weight—it signals Iran is willing to absorb massive costs if it feels cornered.
So what's actually happening on the ground in Lebanon? Is there a ceasefire or not?
That's the question nobody can answer clearly. Hezbollah says it will respect a ceasefire if Israel does. Israel says it's responding to Hezbollah attacks. The violence keeps happening. It's like asking whether a ceasefire exists when both sides are still shooting—technically maybe, but functionally no.
And Netanyahu won't withdraw Israeli forces?
He's said he won't leave until the threat is eliminated. But Hezbollah won't stop fighting unless Israel leaves. So you have two conditions that can't both be met, and the whole nuclear deal is hanging on resolving it.
How much time do they actually have?
Sixty days to turn an interim agreement into a comprehensive nuclear deal. The last one took eighteen months. So either they move faster than anyone thinks possible, or they extend the deadline and hope the violence doesn't spiral further in the meantime.