The situation in Hormuz seems to be deteriorating once more.
Along the narrow waters of the Strait of Hormuz, where a fifth of the world's oil has long passed in uneasy peace, the United States and Iran exchanged retaliatory strikes this weekend, fracturing a preliminary truce signed barely two weeks prior. What began as an Iranian attack on a container ship became a cascade of airstrikes, drone barrages, and presidential threats that now imperils not only commercial shipping but delicate negotiations over Iran's nuclear future and Lebanon's fragile hopes for calm. The episode reveals a recurring human difficulty: that agreements built on vague language tend to collapse under the weight of competing interpretations, and that military action often races ahead of the diplomacy meant to contain it.
- Iran struck the container ship Ever Lovely in the Strait of Hormuz, triggering a 90-minute U.S. airstrike campaign on Iranian missile sites and radar installations — and within hours, Iranian drones were targeting American positions in Bahrain and Kuwait.
- Daily vessel traffic through the strait plummeted from roughly 130 ships before the conflict to just 10 by Saturday, as shipping companies began disabling location-broadcasting systems and the International Maritime Organization suspended evacuation efforts for hundreds of stranded vessels.
- A military hotline the U.S. claimed had been established to prevent escalation was flatly denied by Iranian officials, exposing the depth of mistrust corroding the two-week-old peace framework.
- The collapse of the ceasefire now threatens to unravel simultaneous negotiations over Iran's nuclear program in Switzerland and a newly announced Israel-Lebanon agreement — the latter already rejected as 'null and void' by Hezbollah's leader within hours of its announcement.
- Both governments are using military force to define facts on the ground before diplomacy can resolve the truce's deliberately vague language, with Iran asserting the right to control shipping routes and the U.S. insisting on toll-free passage as a permanent principle — a contradiction neither side appears ready to negotiate away.
A preliminary peace agreement between the United States and Iran, signed less than two weeks ago, began unraveling over the weekend in a cycle of retaliatory strikes that neither side seemed able — or willing — to stop. The sequence started Thursday when Iran attacked the container ship Ever Lovely as it transited the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. responded Friday night with a 90-minute airstrike on Iranian missile storage facilities, drone sites, and coastal radar installations along the strait and on Qeshm Island. Iran's Revolutionary Guards then struck American positions in Bahrain and Kuwait, and President Trump warned on social media that further U.S. action could mean the end of the Islamic Republic itself.
The immediate human toll remained uncertain in the early hours of Sunday. U.S. officials reported no American casualties, while Kuwait's military said it was responding to hostile threats and Bahrain confirmed alarm sirens had sounded. Iranian state media reported explosions in coastal cities near the strait. Neither side appeared to want open war, yet each seemed determined to test the other's red lines.
At the heart of the crisis was a fundamental disagreement over what the ceasefire actually promised. The preliminary agreement had included provisions to reopen the strait to commercial traffic, and for a brief period it worked — vessel transits began recovering, nuclear talks opened in Switzerland, and a separate Israel-Lebanon framework took shape. But the deal's vague language around 'best efforts' and 'arrangements' for safe passage left room for conflicting interpretations. Iran concluded it could dictate which routes ships must take; the U.S. insisted on toll-free transit as a permanent right rather than a 60-day tactical pause.
The shipping consequences were swift and severe. Daily transits fell from 73 vessels on Wednesday to just 10 by Saturday — a fraction of the roughly 130 that had passed through before the conflict began. The International Maritime Organization halted evacuation efforts for hundreds of stranded ships in the Persian Gulf, and operators began switching off location-broadcasting systems, a sign of deepening alarm. Shipping companies with vessels trapped in the gulf for months saw little prospect of relief.
The escalation also cast a shadow over Lebanon. A separate agreement announced Friday — brokered by the Trump administration and calling for a phased Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in exchange for Hezbollah's disarmament — was rejected within hours by Hezbollah's leader as 'humiliating' and 'null and void.' Protesters burned tires in Beirut. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu signaled Israel would remain in southern Lebanon as long as Hezbollah stayed armed, and an Israeli drone struck a southern Lebanese intersection less than a day after the deal was announced. More than a million people displaced by months of cross-border fighting remained in limbo.
Analysts saw little reason for optimism. The core problem, experts noted, was that both sides were using military force to establish facts on the ground before any final agreement could resolve the ambiguities of the interim deal — a dynamic that, by its nature, tends to outpace the diplomacy meant to contain it.
A fragile truce between the United States and Iran fractured over the weekend as each side launched retaliatory strikes, threatening to unravel a preliminary peace agreement signed just weeks earlier. The cycle began Thursday when Iran attacked a container ship, the Ever Lovely, as it transited the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. responded Friday night with airstrikes on Iranian missile and drone storage facilities and coastal radar sites—a 90-minute operation involving six fighter jets striking four targets along the strait and on Qeshm Island. Hours later, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps announced it had attacked American positions in Bahrain and Kuwait, declaring that U.S. bases in the region "will be experiencing hell during these days." President Trump responded with a bellicose social media post, threatening that if the U.S. were forced to act again, "the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist."
The immediate human toll remained unclear. U.S. officials reported no American casualties or major damage to American assets in the early hours of Sunday, though Kuwait's military said it was responding to hostile missiles and drone threats, and Bahrain's interior ministry confirmed alarm sirens had sounded. Iranian state media reported explosions in coastal cities near the strait—Sirik, Kong, and Bandar-e Lengeh—areas that have absorbed previous strikes. Neither side appeared eager to escalate further into open warfare, yet the back-and-forth suggested each was testing the other's willingness to enforce red lines.
The strikes struck at the heart of what was supposed to be a breakthrough. Less than two weeks earlier, the U.S. and Iran had signed a preliminary peace agreement that included provisions to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to commercial traffic. That deal had produced a relative calm, allowing negotiations over Iran's nuclear program to begin in Switzerland and creating space for a separate agreement between Israel and Lebanon aimed at ending fighting on that front. But the vagueness of the ceasefire language—particularly the undefined terms "best efforts" and "arrangements" regarding safe passage—left room for both sides to interpret their obligations differently. Iran appeared to have concluded it could determine which routes ships must take through the waterway. Hours before attacking the Ever Lovely, Iranian officials warned vessels that the only permitted passage was through Iranian waters, attempting to block an alternate route hugging Oman's coastline that the U.S. had been helping to maintain.
The impact on shipping was immediate and severe. Before the attacks, traffic through the strait had begun recovering. On Wednesday, 73 vessels transited; on Thursday, 54. But after Iran's strike on the container ship, the International Maritime Organization halted its evacuation effort for hundreds of stranded vessels in the Persian Gulf. By Friday and Saturday, traffic had collapsed to 34 and 10 vessels respectively—numbers far below the roughly 130 ships that passed through daily before the conflict. The U.K. Maritime Trade Operations agency raised its threat assessment to "substantial," and shipping companies began turning off the systems that broadcast their locations, a sign of deepening fear. Of three vessels belonging to Stealth Gas stuck in the Persian Gulf for over three months, only one had managed to exit recently; the other two remained trapped. "The situation in Hormuz seems to be deteriorating once more," the company's chief executive said.
The ceasefire's collapse also threatened to derail broader diplomatic efforts. Vice President JD Vance had claimed this week that a military hotline had been established between the U.S. and Iran to de-escalate tensions, but Iranian military officials denied any such channel existed. Mohsen Rezaei, an adviser to Iran's supreme leader, accused the U.S. of "continuing to create tensions" and violating the memorandum of understanding, warning that "the response to the violation of any article will be swift and decisive." The fundamental disagreement over the strait's future remained unresolved: Washington insisted no country could charge ships for passage, treating toll-free transit as a permanent principle, while Tehran viewed the 60-day free-passage guarantee as a tactical pause and asserted a right to eventually levy fees for what it called "services."
The escalation also cast a shadow over a separate agreement announced Friday between Israel and Lebanon, brokered by the Trump administration. That deal outlined a phased Israeli withdrawal from occupied southern Lebanese territory in exchange for the disarmament of Hezbollah, the Iran-backed militant group. But Hezbollah's leader, Naim Qassem, immediately rejected the framework as "humiliating, shameful and a surrender of sovereignty," declaring it "null and void." He argued that linking Israeli withdrawal to Hezbollah's disarmament crossed red lines and that the group's weapons were essential to defending Lebanon against Israel. Protesters aligned with Hezbollah took to the streets of Beirut on Friday night, burning tires and blocking roads near the government seat.
The Lebanon agreement reflected deep internal divisions and fragile hopes. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam framed it as a path to restoring state sovereignty and enabling the return of more than a million people displaced by over three months of cross-border fighting. But skeptics, including businessman Elias Yaghi, saw only delay: "This deal is not feasible. All parties are buying time. Nothing has changed." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphasized that Israel would maintain its presence in southern Lebanon as long as Hezbollah remained armed, undercutting the agreement's promise of withdrawal. Less than 24 hours after the deal was announced, an Israeli drone struck an intersection in southern Lebanon, a reminder that the ground remained contested.
Analysts warned that the cycle of strikes and counterstrikes would likely persist. "Risks will remain high for shipping," said Noam Raydan of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "Iran is unwilling to halt its attacks on ships and threats—and this will continue requiring a response from the U.S." The fundamental problem, experts suggested, was that both sides were using military action to define facts on the ground before a final agreement could clarify the vague language of the interim deal. Iran appeared to be testing how far it could push its control over the strait; the U.S. was signaling it would not tolerate such moves. Neither seemed confident that diplomacy alone could resolve the dispute, and neither appeared ready to back down.
Citas Notables
There may come a point when we are no longer able to be reasonable, and will be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started. If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist.— President Trump, on social media
The response to the violation of any article of the memorandum of understanding will be swift and decisive.— Mohsen Rezaei, adviser to Iran's supreme leader
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does the language of the ceasefire matter so much? Couldn't both sides just agree to let ships through?
Because "best efforts" and "arrangements" don't mean the same thing to Tehran and Washington. Iran reads them as permission to control the routes. The U.S. reads them as a commitment to open access. When you leave that undefined, you're not really agreeing—you're just postponing the argument.
So Iran attacked a ship to prove a point?
More or less. They warned vessels not to use the Oman route, and when one went through anyway, they struck it. It was a way of saying: we decide who goes where. The U.S. then had to respond, or lose credibility with shipping companies and allies.
And now shipping is collapsing again?
Exactly. Companies are turning off their location systems. They're not going through. Why risk it when you don't know if the next ship will be targeted? The whole point of the ceasefire was to restore commerce. Instead, traffic has dropped from 130 ships a day to single digits.
What about the Lebanon agreement? That seemed like progress.
It was supposed to be. But Hezbollah rejected it immediately, and Netanyahu made clear Israel isn't actually leaving. It's a framework on paper while the ground tells a different story. And now the U.S.-Iran strikes are making everyone wonder if the whole thing will hold.
Is there a way out of this?
Not obvious. Both sides are testing limits. Iran wants to see how much control it can claim over the strait. The U.S. wants to prevent that. Neither wants full war, but neither is backing down. The ceasefire was always fragile—now it's just fraying faster.