A Hormuz agreement nears its final stage as Iran shifts its pressure onto Gulf states and the southern front expands through Houthi attacks

Follow-up and Analysis | BETH

The U.S.-Iran war entered its 157th day amid a contradictory scene: political rhetoric suggesting that the end is approaching, alongside military movements indicating that the parties are preparing for the possibility of a diplomatic collapse.

While U.S. President Donald Trump said he expected the war to end “very soon,” the United States, Iran, and Oman moved closer to concluding a temporary understanding that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic, following agreement on shipping routes and progress toward the final drafting stage.

However, U.S. optimism has not eliminated disagreements over the terms of implementation. Chief among them is Tehran’s demand that the U.S. blockade of its ports be lifted, while Washington insists on freedom of navigation and rejects the imposition of fees or discriminatory restrictions on vessels passing through the strait.

The Strait of Hormuz has therefore become the first test of whether the two sides can move from threats to understanding before addressing more complex issues, including the cessation of military operations, Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions, and security guarantees.

An End in Sight

Trump said Iran could not sustain the war much longer and that he believed the fighting would end soon, pointing to the mounting military and economic costs facing Tehran and growing international pressure to end the crisis.

Yet the U.S. president’s remarks carry two parallel messages: the first opens the door to an agreement that Washington can present as the outcome of its military pressure, while the second keeps the threat of force on the table should the understandings falter.

Iran, meanwhile, is seeking to avoid appearing as though it has yielded to the U.S. deadline. It therefore describes the emerging understanding as a technical and security agreement with Oman, rather than the result of direct negotiations with the United States.

This divergence does not necessarily mean that an agreement remains distant. Instead, it reveals each side’s need to shape its own political narrative before any settlement is announced.

Hormuz First

Current talks are focused on opening safe corridors through the Strait of Hormuz and regulating the passage of commercial vessels, following a decline in maritime traffic, rising shipping and insurance costs, and disruption across energy markets.

The anticipated agreement appears likely to be temporary and limited. Its purpose would be to prevent further attacks on vessels, restore part of the commercial traffic, and build a degree of confidence that could pave the way for a broader political understanding.

However, reopening the strait on paper would not mean that the crisis has ended in practice. The agreement’s success will be measured by the number of vessels returning to the waterway, declining insurance premiums, stabilizing energy prices, and fewer maritime warnings.

The monitoring mechanism, the designation of the party responsible for protecting vessels, and procedures for addressing possible violations will also remain among the agreement’s most sensitive provisions.

The Gulf Under Pressure

As the Hormuz talks advance, Iran has intensified its contacts with regional states, warning that it could target oil, electricity, water, and transport facilities if its infrastructure is subjected to renewed U.S. strikes.

This warning reveals a shift in Iran’s deterrence strategy. Instead of limiting the confrontation to attacks on U.S. forces, Tehran is seeking to raise the regional cost of any strike against it and push Gulf states to exert greater pressure on Washington to halt the escalation.

However, this policy carries considerable risk. Threatening states that are calling for de-escalation could produce the opposite result, prompting them to strengthen their defenses and expand their security and military cooperation.

Saudi Arabia has continued to pursue a course aimed at reducing tensions and giving diplomacy a chance, while making clear that any attack on its territory or facilities will be met with measures sufficient to protect its security and sovereignty.

This is where the distinction between mediation and defensive neutrality becomes clear: Saudi Arabia is working to prevent the war from expanding, but it will not allow its call for peace to become an opening through which its national security can be threatened.

The Southern Front

The military landscape expanded as the Houthis escalated their attacks inside Yemen and against Saudi territory. Missiles and drones targeted government military camps in Marib and Hadramout, killing dozens of soldiers, according to Yemeni government sources.

Eleven civilians of several nationalities, including a child, were also injured in shelling that struck civilian areas in Najran. The coalition affirmed that it would take the necessary measures to protect civilians.

The timing of the attacks alongside Iran’s threats against Gulf states points to an attempt to distribute pressure across several fronts: Hormuz to the east, the Red Sea and Yemen to the south, and the threat of missiles and drones arriving from multiple directions.

It cannot be conclusively established that every military action is carried out under direct orders from Tehran. Nevertheless, the convergence of timing, messaging, and interests makes the fronts strategically interconnected, even when their operational command centers differ.

The Weapons of War

In Washington, a U.S. official acknowledged that stocks of some interceptor missiles had declined significantly, while Trump maintained that the United States possesses vast quantities of munitions and that factories are working to increase production.

This debate reveals an important dimension of the war: the United States is capable of continuing offensive operations, but it must also calculate the cost of defending its bases, allies, and maritime traffic across a vast geographical area.

The negotiations, therefore, do not appear to be the result of U.S. military incapacity. Rather, they reflect an understanding that prolonging the war would consume expensive munitions and magnify risks to the global economy without guaranteeing a clear political outcome.

Analysis | BETH

The current situation represents neither a complete peace nor certain preparations for a major new round of fighting. It is a final stage of pressure in which each side is trying to improve its position ahead of a settlement.

The United States wants an agreement that reopens Hormuz without fees or restrictions and enables Washington to present itself as the party that secured freedom of navigation through force and pressure.

Iran wants the blockade of its ports lifted, recognition of its role in the security arrangements governing the strait, and a way out of the war that does not amount to declaring surrender or directly abandoning its regional leverage.

The Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, are pursuing a third path: halting the escalation, protecting maritime navigation and critical infrastructure, and preventing the region from bearing the cost of a conflict that serves neither its security nor its economy.

The greatest danger on Day 157, therefore, does not lie in the absence of negotiations, but in attempts to improve negotiating terms by threatening other parties. The closer a Hormuz agreement becomes, the more valuable the remaining pressure cards may appear to both sides before it is signed.

What Comes Next?

During the next phase, attention will focus on four indicators:

• The official announcement of an agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and its implementation mechanism.
• Washington’s position on the blockade imposed on Iranian ports.
• An end to attacks on vessels, Gulf infrastructure, and the Yemeni front.
• The transition from a maritime understanding to negotiations over ending military operations and addressing the nuclear issue.

If the Hormuz agreement succeeds, it will not mark the end of the war, but it could become the first doorway out of it.

If it fails, strikes may resume with greater intensity, and the confrontation could shift from pressure on Iran to a broader conflict involving energy facilities, ports, and maritime corridors across the region.

Beyond the News

Hormuz has become more than a maritime passage. It is now the negotiating table at which the United States and Iran face one another, and the instrument each is trying to use to convince its domestic audience that it has not retreated.

Yet genuine peace will not begin with the passage of the first tanker. It will begin when the parties stop using the security of other countries and the safety of civilians as fuel for improving the terms of an agreement.

The passage may be reopened by a decision, but trust will not cross until the missiles fall silent.