US-Iran Deal Bets Hormuz Shipping on 60 Fragile Days

A waterway that averaged 94 merchant ship transits a day in 2025 fell to just six after the US-Iran war began, and the new US-Iran deal only commits Iran to “best efforts” on safe commercial passage for 60 days.

That single contrast explains why this agreement matters beyond diplomacy. President Donald Trump has formally signed a 14-point Memorandum of Understanding with Iran to end the conflict that began on 28 February, when the US and Israel launched air strikes against Tehran and across the country, according to BBC World. The deal touches three pressure points at once: Iran’s nuclear programme, sanctions and oil exports, and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

The catch is that this is not a finished nuclear accord like the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. It is a framework for 60 days of talks. That makes the omissions as important as the promises.

Why could the new US-Iran deal move weapons talks, sanctions policy, and Gulf shipping?

The US-Iran deal lands after a war that changed the immediate facts on the ground. Before the conflict, ships had moved freely through the Strait of Hormuz for years. After 28 February, the daily average number of merchant ship transits tracked by IMF ship data dropped from 94 in 2025 to six, though BBC notes the real figure is likely higher because some vessels crossed with transmitters turned off.

That collapse came from two forces in the BBC account: Iranian attacks on commercial shipping and a US blockade of Iranian ports. The MoU says the US will “fully end” that blockade “within 30 days”. Iran, for its part, says it will use its “best efforts” for safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge, but only for 60 days.

This is why the agreement is so sensitive. Supporters can frame it as a way to reduce immediate military and shipping risk. Critics can point to the same text and ask why the strongest economic benefits appear before the hardest nuclear questions are settled.

XOOMAR has covered the political framing around this moment in Trump Iran Deal Exposes the Fantasy Behind His War, while the unresolved nuclear timeline is central to Trump's US-Iran Agreement Masks a Nuclear Deadline.

What is actually in the US-Iran deal on weapons, money, and ships?

The MoU is clearest on sanctions and shipping, thinner on nuclear detail, and silent on ballistic missiles.

On weapons, Iran “reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons”. That echoes the JCPOA’s language, which said:

“Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons”.

But the new document does not impose the detailed restrictions found in the 2015 accord. It says both sides “agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment” and to “resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon”.

On money, the MoU says the US will “terminate all types of sanctions” against Iran on an agreed schedule. More immediately, it allows waivers after signing for “the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives and all associated services including banking, transactions, insurances, transportation”.

On ships, the agreement gives a short-term path to reopen traffic, but leaves the longer-term governance of the Strait of Hormuz unsettled. After the 60-day no-charge period, Iran will “conduct dialogue” with Oman over future administration and maritime services.

How does this Iran deal differ from the 2015 nuclear agreement?

The JCPOA was a detailed nuclear agreement negotiated over two years. The new MoU is a framework for talks.

The nuclear gap is stark. When Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018, he called it “decaying and rotten”. The IAEA had said Iran was complying until that withdrawal. After the deal collapsed, Iran expanded its nuclear programme.

At the start of the war on 28 February 2026, Iran held approximately 440kg of uranium enriched to 60%, according to US officials cited by BBC. That material can be fairly quickly enriched to the 90% threshold needed for weapons-grade uranium.

Analysis: the new MoU asks markets, governments, and regional states to accept a pause before the hard nuclear bargain is written. That may reduce immediate fighting, but it also means the central enforcement machinery is still missing.

How would sanctions relief avoid giving Tehran a blank cheque?

The BBC source does not describe a tightly monitored fund-release mechanism for the new MoU. That matters.

In the 2015 JCPOA, the US did not pay Iran new money. It provided sanctions relief and restored access to some Iranian assets, including central bank assets frozen or seized abroad. A US Treasury official estimated in 2015 that unfrozen Iranian central bank assets were worth between $100bn and $125bn, but said Tehran would only be able to access around $50bn from sanctions relief.

This new MoU is framed differently. It promises sanctions termination on a schedule, while immediate waivers cover Iranian oil exports and associated services such as banking, insurance, transportation, and transactions.

The memorandum also says the US and “regional partners” will develop a plan funded with “at least $300bn” for Iran’s “reconstruction and development”. BBC reports no conditions on Iran for the immediate oil waivers.

Analysis: that is the biggest economic asymmetry in the document. The MoU contains near-term economic relief, while the most sensitive nuclear restrictions are deferred to talks.

How could the deal change risks for tankers and ships near Iran?

The MoU tries to reverse the wartime squeeze on shipping. The US blockade is meant to end within 30 days. Iran’s commitment to safe commercial passage without charge lasts 60 days.

That sounds simple, but the text leaves a major opening. On 21 May, Iran announced a Persian Gulf Strait Authority to regulate shipping through the waterway. BBC also reports that Iran’s foreign ministry said there would not be “transit tolls”, but there would be “fees” for using the strait, charged for services provided.

The MoU does not say the US will stop Iran from charging such fees later. Nor does it settle what future administration of the Strait of Hormuz will look like after Iran’s talks with Oman.

A practical example is easy to see. A commercial vessel that could once transit the strait as part of normal traffic now has to consider whether the 60-day no-charge period holds, whether Iran introduces service fees afterward, and whether the US blockade is actually lifted on the promised timeline.

Analysis: shipping risk is not controlled by one signature. It will be tested by naval behavior, Iranian enforcement choices, and whether commercial traffic returns toward the pre-war pattern.

The deal will be judged at nuclear sites, bank channels, and the Strait of Hormuz

The next test is not the language of the MoU. It is behavior.

Three signals matter most:

• Nuclear material: Whether Iran’s 60% enriched uranium is limited, removed, destroyed, or otherwise placed under a mechanism both sides accept.
• Sanctions relief: Whether oil waivers and broader sanctions termination proceed before or after verifiable nuclear steps.
• Shipping lanes: Whether commercial transits through the Strait of Hormuz recover, and whether Iran later converts “services” into a durable revenue and control point.

The warning signs are equally clear: no enrichment deal after 60 days, renewed ship seizures or attacks, US sanctions snapping back, or public disagreement over whether Iran’s stockpile must be destroyed.

The new US-Iran deal buys time. It does not yet answer the hardest question: whether that time will produce a real nuclear agreement, or simply move the confrontation from missiles and ships into sanctions schedules and maritime fees.

Impact Analysis

• The deal could reduce immediate military and shipping risks in the Strait of Hormuz.
• Its 60-day framework leaves major questions unresolved on nuclear talks, sanctions, and oil exports.
• The sharp fall in ship transits shows how quickly conflict can disrupt a critical global trade route.