COLUMN: Hormuz: A Fragile Truce in Which Iran Tests Washington’s Patience

A negotiator who embodies Tehran’s cautious hard line

The name Kazem Gharibabadi has come up repeatedly in news reports over the past few weeks. As head of the Iranian delegation in Doha, he represents an Iranian diplomatic approach that rejects direct contact with the Americans while expanding indirect channels of communication. The American negotiators, for their part, have communicated exclusively through Qatari mediators—a formal distance that speaks volumes about the persistent mistrust between the two capitals.

Also noteworthy: the conspicuous absence of Jared Kushner and U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff during these sessions in Doha, according to a source who requested anonymity. Their temporary withdrawal from the negotiations could signal either a strategic pause or a calculated message sent to Tehran to ease diplomatic tensions.

A Timeline Dictated by National Mourning

The next meeting between the two delegations will not take place until after the funeral of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, whose burial is scheduled for July 9, 2026. This postponement—very real in terms of protocol—slows down an already slow and fragile process in a region where every week of uncertainty can tip the military balance.

I resist the urge to overinterpret every Iranian diplomatic gesture. But the absence of direct meetings, month after month, speaks volumes about a regime that prefers calculated slowness to transparency, even when that slowness comes at a high cost to its own people.

An Iranian Threat on Hold, Not Abandoned

Iran has repeatedly stated that it plans to impose tolls on maritime traffic passing through the Strait of Hormuz starting in mid-August 2026, once the toll-free period provided for in the initial agreement expires. Washington has firmly rejected this idea through Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who warned that Iran would not be allowed to tax ships under a final agreement.

According to Axios, a U.S. official summed up the White House’s position with a scathing remark: lifting sanctions as part of a comprehensive agreement would be “100 times more valuable” to Iran than resorting to what Washington calls a “gangster tactic.” In return, Tehran agreed to waive transit fees for 60 days, while nuclear talks continue.

An economic standoff disguised as a maritime issue

This dispute over tolls is not merely a logistical issue. It reveals the true nature of the power dynamic: Iran seeks to capitalize on its strategic geographic position, while the United States wants to impose a framework in which the lifting of sanctions remains the only acceptable bargaining chip.

I find Tehran’s approach of brandishing maritime tolls as a bargaining chip almost cynical. It is economic blackmail disguised as a sovereignty issue. Washington is right to reject this framework, even if rhetorical firmness guarantees nothing on the ground.

A truce timed to coincide with a symbolic date

Washington and Tehran agreed to a one-week de-escalation period in the Strait of Hormuz ahead of the U.S. Independence Day on July 4, according to reports by the New York Post and confirmed by a U.S. official. The stated goal was to maintain calm while technical teams continued their indirect talks in Doha, without the U.S. holiday schedule interfering with the ongoing negotiations.

That same weekend, Iran was holding funeral ceremonies for Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—a dual event—Iran’s national commemoration and the U.S. Independence Day—that forced both delegations to synchronize their diplomatic efforts with domestic imperatives far removed from the maritime issue itself.

A truce that resolved nothing of substance

The central point of disagreement remains unresolved: the two sides have still not found common ground on effective control of the waterway. Iran has indicated that it would work with Oman to define future administration and maritime services in the strait, in consultation with other Persian Gulf littoral states, but no final agreement has been signed.

A truce timed to coincide with a U.S. holiday is not substantive diplomacy; it is short-term crisis management. I note this without excessive cynicism: sometimes, gaining a week of calm is enough to prevent things from spiraling out of control. But it is never a lasting solution.

A Plunge in Prices That Reflects Cautious Optimism

Donald Trump’s optimistic remarks—“I think they’ve come a long way”—had an immediate effect on the markets: oil prices fell to their lowest level in four months, and several analysts revised their price forecasts downward for the first time since the war began. This market reaction shows just how closely investors are monitoring every presidential statement as an indicator of geopolitical risk.

But this market confidence remains fragile. Iranian state media reported that a foreign container ship had run aground in shallow waters, outside the shipping lane officially designated by Iranian authorities—a minor incident that serves as a reminder that navigation through the strait remains technically complicated and politically sensitive.

Germany’s Refusal to Participate in Mine-Clearing

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius stated that he did not expect Germany to participate in mine-clearing operations in the Strait, explicitly citing Iran’s refusal to cooperate with other countries on this issue. This European refusal illustrates the limits of Western solidarity when Tehran remains closed to any form of multilateral technical cooperation.

I understand Germany’s caution, but it annoys me a little. If Europe wants to have an impact on this issue, it must agree to get concretely involved, not just watch from afar while waiting for Washington to do the diplomatic and military work for it.

A withdrawal that raises questions about the U.S. diplomatic hierarchy

The absence of Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff during this round of talks in Doha raises a legitimate question: Who in Washington is actually managing this issue on a day-to-day basis? These two men have been central figures in U.S. diplomacy regarding Iran since the beginning of the year, and their withdrawal—even if only temporary—leaves a protocol-related void that the Qatari mediators had to fill.

This unusual arrangement could also reflect Washington’s desire to test the strength of the Qatari channel without the symbolic pressure of having direct presidential emissaries present. It is a way of verifying whether the diplomatic framework holds up without its most visible figures.

Diplomacy at Multiple Speeds

The contrast is striking with the more dramatic announcements made by Trump himself on social media and before the press. While the president speaks of rapid progress, the technical teams on the ground are moving at a much more measured, almost painstaking pace.

This difference in pace between presidential communications and the technical work on the ground is not new, but it is worth noting. Trump’s grand statements can never replace the patient work of second-tier negotiators, who are often invisible in the media.

Financial sanctions will remain in place until the MoU is honored

A U.S. official quoted by the Israeli broadcaster i24NEWS confirmed that Iranian assets would remain frozen until the terms of the memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran are fully met. Specifically, any funds that might be released would be earmarked for the purchase of U.S. agricultural products—a restriction that significantly limits Iran’s financial flexibility.

This approach turns the unfreezing of assets into a permanent bargaining chip rather than a one-time concession. Until Tehran demonstrates good faith on all aspects of the memorandum—sanctions, the nuclear program, the Strait of Hormuz, and regional security—the money remains frozen.

Pressure aimed at limiting Iran’s room to maneuver

By making the release of funds contingent on specific agricultural purchases, Washington ensures that the released funds will not finance Iran’s military program or its regional networks of influence. It is a limited guarantee, but a guarantee nonetheless.

I find this American approach rather clever: freezing the funds until trust is restored, while offering a strictly regulated way out. It’s the kind of pragmatism that, for once, doesn’t sacrifice firmness on the altar of diplomatic speed.

A Lebanese Issue Creeps Into the Trilateral Discussions

According to sources close to the Doha talks, discussions between the Qatari, Pakistani, and Iranian delegations also focused on the situation in Lebanon—proof that the Strait of Hormuz issue can never be completely separated from other areas of Iranian influence in the region. This interconnection complicates any agreement that purports to be limited to a single maritime issue.

Stability in the Persian Gulf remains inextricably linked to the broader balance of power between Tehran, its regional allies, and the Western powers with a military presence in the area. Every development regarding the Strait of Hormuz has repercussions for strategic calculations in Beirut, Baghdad, and Sanaa.

A Test for the Credibility of Qatari Mediation

Qatar’s role as a key mediator in this matter strengthens its regional diplomatic position, but also exposes it to criticism if it fails to produce tangible results. Doha has a lot at stake in this equation, just as much as Washington and Tehran.

Qatar has patiently built a reputation as an indispensable mediator in this region. I remain cautious about its underlying motivations, but it must be acknowledged that without this Qatari channel, U.S.-Iranian talks probably would not even have begun.

The Iran issue is never entirely disconnected from Ukraine

For Ukrainian observers, the Iran issue remains indirectly linked to their own war against Russia. Iran continues to supply drones and military technology to Moscow, and any excessive normalization of relations between Washington and Tehran—if not accompanied by strict guarantees—could indirectly ease international pressure on Iran’s military supply networks to Russia.

This is a nuance rarely mentioned in Western media coverage of the Strait of Hormuz issue, but it deserves to be raised: any easing of sanctions on Iran must also be assessed in light of its impact on Russian military capabilities in Ukraine.

Western Vigilance Must Remain Comprehensive

The West cannot treat the Iranian issue and the Ukrainian issue as two completely separate matters. The two issues feed into one another within the broader strategy of the axis formed by Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea.

I have been repeating this for months in this column: we cannot negotiate with Iran over the Strait of Hormuz while ignoring what that means for drone shipments to Russia. Strategic coherence on the part of the West requires that we view these issues together, never separately.

Military pressure that forced Tehran to the negotiating table

We must acknowledge the facts: the campaign of strikes led by Trump in February, alongside Israel, was the direct catalyst for this diplomatic process. Without this sustained military pressure, it is difficult to imagine Iran agreeing to sit down—even indirectly—at the negotiating table on the Strait of Hormuz.

This approach—combining military firmness with calculated diplomatic overtures—follows the same logic seen in the Ukraine crisis: maintaining pressure while keeping a negotiated exit route open. It is a method that may be criticized in form, but whose tactical effectiveness, in this specific case, is hard to deny.

The Limits of Personalized Diplomacy

The downside of this method is its excessive reliance on the president as an individual. If Trump were to change his priorities or tone overnight, the entire diplomatic framework built in Doha could collapse just as quickly as it was constructed.

I give Trump the credit he deserves for the initial military pressure on Iran, while remaining clear-eyed about the structural fragility of diplomacy so centered on a single man. It is a tactical achievement, not a strategic guarantee.

Between Slow Stabilization and a Possible Relapse

Three scenarios are emerging for the future. The first, the most optimistic, would see the Hormuz truce gradually evolve into a lasting maritime agreement, with mutual recognition of navigation zones. The second, a more cautious scenario, would maintain the current status quo: a fragile calm, punctuated by occasional tensions, without a collapse or a decisive breakthrough. The third, the bleakest, would see the mid-August deadline on the tolls reignite military tensions if no compromise is reached by then.

The funeral of the Supreme Leader, scheduled for July 9, marks a critical internal turning point for Iran, where the political succession could directly influence the negotiating stance adopted by Tehran in the weeks that follow.

Vigilance that must never waver

Regardless of the scenario that unfolds, one thing remains certain: the region will remain tense until a comprehensive agreement—covering nuclear issues, sanctions, and maritime security—has been formally signed and verified on the ground.

I refuse to give in to superficial optimism on this issue. I have seen too many regional truces collapse within a matter of weeks to believe that the Strait of Hormuz is permanently secure. For now, caution remains the only intellectually honest stance.

A Precedent for Any Negotiations with an Authoritarian Regime

The approach taken in Doha—military pressure, followed by structured technical negotiations, and then a conditional financial freeze—could become a model for other situations involving authoritarian regimes hostile to the West. The way Washington handles this Iranian issue will be closely watched in Beijing, Pyongyang, and Moscow, where each side is assessing the West’s ability to maintain a firm stance without giving in to haste.

An American failure in the Strait of Hormuz would send a signal of weakness to this entire authoritarian axis, while a success—even a partial one—would bolster the credibility of the Western doctrine of conditional firmness.

A Lesson in Strategic Patience

This issue serves as a reminder of a truth all too often forgotten: diplomacy with authoritarian regimes is never measured in weeks, but in years. Those hoping for a quick and definitive resolution to the Iran issue are in for certain disappointment.

I prefer a slow and solid victory to a quick and fragile agreement. On the Iranian issue, as on that of Ukraine, haste has always favored authoritarian regimes, never Western democracies.

Sailors, dockworkers, families holding their breath

Behind the official statements and oil price charts lie the crews of oil tankers sailing daily through a region that remains unstable, port workers whose jobs depend directly on the volume of authorized traffic, and Iranian families hoping that the release of frozen funds will one day translate into a tangible improvement in their daily economic lives. It is these lives—rarely mentioned in news reports—that pay the most immediate price for every diplomatic delay.

The de-escalation negotiated in Doha is not a geopolitical abstraction for these workers in the Persian Gulf. Every additional week of tension delays shipments, complicates marine insurance, and undermines local economies already strained by years of regional instability.

Diplomacy Must Be Judged by Its Concrete Effects

This may be the most honest test of the value of this agreement: not the number of press releases issued in Doha, but the number of ships that actually pass through the Strait of Hormuz without incident, week after week, in the months to come.

I often think of those anonymous crews navigating a zone that diplomats negotiate from air-conditioned offices. Their actual safety should always take precedence over the spectacle of agreements signed from afar.

A Balance That Can Still Be Reversed

The Doha round, concluded on July 1, 2026, is neither a resounding diplomatic victory nor a stinging defeat. It is a technical, fragile step in a process that remains contingent on internal political timelines—funerals in Tehran, toll deadlines in August—rather than on a lasting, substantive resolution. The partial reopening of the Strait of Hormuz remains, for now, the only tangible and verifiable result of these weeks of indirect negotiations.

The Lesson for the West

The combination of military resolve and diplomatic patience that Washington has applied to this issue deserves close scrutiny, including by those managing the Ukraine crisis. The lesson is the same everywhere: authoritarian regimes yield only under pressure, never out of spontaneous goodwill.

I conclude this column as I began it: with measured confidence in the Western approach and undiminished skepticism regarding Tehran’s true intentions. History will judge this issue by its verifiable results, not by its announcements.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist