Iran is leveraging its control over the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz to compel the United States to uphold a previous agreement, according to analysts. The demands recently articulated by Iran largely mirror terms previously accepted by President Donald Trump in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed on June 17, which subsequently collapsed. Iran views its influence over the strait as its most potent tool to ensure US commitment to these promises.
Strait of Hormuz: Iran’s Key Leverage
The continued, albeit partial, closure of the Strait of Hormuz serves multiple strategic purposes for Iran. By maintaining this pressure, Iran can influence global energy prices, keeping them elevated. Furthermore, it encourages Persian Gulf states, reliant on the strait for their own exports, to lobby Washington for a return to the June MOU. This indirect pressure from regional actors aims to guide US policy back towards de-escalation.
Esfandyar Batmanghelidj, founder of the Bourse & Bazaar Foundation, explained that the high level of mistrust between Iran and the US necessitates Iran securing tangible economic benefits, such as sanctions relief for reconstruction, before relinquishing control over the strait. “Iranian officials are concerned that if the strait opens, Trump would walk away from this conflict without feeling the need to resolve it,” Batmanghelidj stated. “They want to use the strait as a commitment mechanism to ensure Trump implements the various provisions of the MOU.”
Ali Vaez, the Iran project director for the International Crisis Group, likened the strait’s significance to a “sword of Damocles over Trump.” He elaborated that Iran seeks to “front-load benefits without surrendering its main leverage, which is Hormuz.”
Iran’s Demands and the June Memorandum
On Sunday, President Trump expressed his belief that Iran would eventually yield due to economic pressures. He indicated a de-escalatory approach, stating, “We are low-keying it,” and did not signal intentions for further military action.
The specific demands put forth by Iran were outlined by Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. These included the lifting of US naval blockades and sanctions on Iranian oil and petrochemical exports, the withdrawal of US forces from the vicinity of Iran, payment of war reparations, release of frozen Iranian assets, and an end to actions against Iran’s regional allies, such as Lebanon, along with threats against Iran itself.
With the exception of war reparations, these demands were largely incorporated into the 14-point June memorandum. However, the agreement’s terms were reportedly violated within weeks, leading President Trump to declare the deal “over.” The demand for reparations has also been a recurring point, with Iranian officials suggesting it serves as a bargaining chip to maximize sanctions relief from Washington, according to Vaez.
Diplomatic Efforts and Internal Divisions
Vaez noted that Iran’s discussions with Oman regarding the passage of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz once reopened were nearing completion. However, Iran’s overarching objective is to link the strait’s reopening to the full restoration of the MOU, which would necessitate further direct negotiations with the US.
Any future discussions concerning Iran’s nuclear program, a primary justification cited by the US for its actions, are contingent upon the revival of the memorandum. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed on Sunday that talks with Oman concerning the Strait of Hormuz were progressing well and were in their final stages, with experts working on mapping details. “However, an agreement with Oman does not mean reopening the strait, which remains dependent on fulfilling conditions conveyed through mediators,” Araghchi stated.
Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House, suggested that internal divisions within Iran contribute to the emphasis on these specific demands. Some Iranian officials favor diplomacy as the most effective route to economic recovery. Conversely, hardliners are reportedly more skeptical and risk-averse, preferring to retain leverage rather than prioritize economic considerations, believing Trump might avoid escalating the conflict.
Vakil also observed that Iran perceives divisions within Washington, with some officials advocating for diplomacy and others for more aggressive military action, leading to unpredictable US policy shifts. Additionally, some in Washington reportedly believe that reopening the strait would lead Trump to abandon the broader issue, leaving Iran’s nuclear activities unresolved.
Trust and Future Negotiations
“The Iranians don’t want to do this for free,” Vakil emphasized. “The strait is not about fees; it’s about control and leverage for the rest of the package.” She added that the situation is fundamentally about trust.
Batmanghelidj further clarified that Iran could have presented more extreme demands but chose instead to pursue a return to the memorandum as a foundation for a lasting cessation of hostilities. “What matters less is the particular figure or amount or concession, but what the US can do to prove to Iran that it can make good on any of these commitments,” he said.
Vakil concluded that the memorandum of understanding represents “the floor from which everyone will try to build a structure for a deal,” but acknowledged that “we’re far away from that.”
