Recent Items

Iran War: Axios Reports US, Iran Agree to Ceasefire Within Ceasefire, Doha Meeting on Strait of Hormuz as Iran Stands Up US on Technical Talks; Ship Transits Fall; Reports of Big US Buildup; Israel Attacks in Lebanon Continue

Posted on by

[Today’s Iran war post fired before finished. Please return at 8:00 AM for a final version]

After two rounds of tit-for-tat attacks, Iran and the US are allegedly returning to the negotiating table in Doha on Tuesday to try to sort out an understanding on the Strait of Hormuz. From Aljazeera’s landing page:

Keep in mind the sources are Axios, which has a close to unblemished record for calling “agreements” that do not happen, and Reuters, which has also had more of a propensity than most other Western outlets for running accounts supporting the US position that did not prove to be accurate. Note that this Doha session would be in addition to the technical talks set for today that Iran shelved:

There are no statements from Iran confirming a meeting in Doha of this hour.

On the one hands, even though it is a near certainty that any chat will not close the gap between Iran and the US, Iran loses nothing by taking the meeting. On the other hand, if I were Iran, I might mess with the effort to tamp down oil prices and, 15 before market opening, say no meeting was confirmed.

After a short and marked uptick due to Oman-channel traffic before the latest dustup, transits in the Strait of Hormuz are back down to low levels:

Not confirmed but credible:

And impediments remain:

This Lloyds’ List story, points out that even the “get the trapped vessels out” operation was not going to be easy. From
Hormuz exit will bring ‘huge’ navigational challenges:

  • Stern-to-bow convoys would reduce collision risk
  • But no guarantee how crews will react under fire or if something goes wrong
  • Fatigue remains a big risk, with the risk of human error significant

Transiting a non-conventional route through the chokepoint alone will bring navigational issues, without the threat of missile fire on top

However, a very fresh story at Middle East Eye’s live feed says that, contradicting some of the gloomier reports on Twitter, that new oil is starting to come out of the Gulf, and not just inventories on trapped tankers.

Energy shipments in Hormuz continue despite recent tanker attacks

Middle East producers are pushing ahead with loading oil and liquefied natural gas, shipping data showed.

Washington and Iran agreed on Sunday to halt hostilities and renew talks on the Strait of Hormuz, despite recent shipping attacks that threatened their interim deal.

On Monday, a fourth large crude carrier, capable of carrying two million barrels of oil, was seen loading at Saudi Arabia’s Ras Tanura terminal, LSEG data showed, even after a helicopter belonging to Saudi Aramco, the state oil company, crashed on Sunday, killing 14 people. The cause of the crash was unknown.

Three other very large crude carriers (VLCCs) have loaded oil and gone dark since leaving the terminal over the weekend, according to the data.

One of these supertankers emerged on Monday, having exited the strait, and is now heading for Japan, the data showed.

Two VLCCs entered the strait on Sunday and have docked at a United Arab Emirates terminal to load crude.

On liquefied natural gas, two additional ballast tankers appeared on ship-tracking data in the west of the strait on 26 June after going dark, while two other loaded LNG tankers have exited Hormuz.

From the same feed:

Data shows 48 vessels crossed Hormuz after attacks

A total of 48 vessels transited the Strait of Hormuz between 26 and 28 June following the latest exchange of strikes between the United States and Iran.

According to data tracked by Al Jazeera, the vessels included 23 oil and gas tankers, seven bulk carriers and 19 cargo or container ships.

The figure marks a decline from the 70 transits recorded on Wednesday and 54 on Thursday, before the latest escalation, suggesting renewed security concerns may be affecting maritime traffic through the strategic waterway.

Experts have said that two-way shipments are essential to normalization of supply. Recall also that the Gulf States are dead set against paying fees to Iran or supporting its position that it controls the Strait of Hormuz, so these vessels seem likely to depart the Strait of Hormuz on the Oman side.

We’ll see what happens in light of Iran continuing to insist on the exclusive use of its channel:

A fresher update from Twitter:

This level is still low relative to the old normal, needless to say. It looks as if there was one very low day and then ship operators decided to press ahead.

This tweet includes a key fact we had managed to miss:

From its text:

Several ship owners have indicated that many vessels avoid the Iranian route because European sanctions tied to the IRGC remain in place. That leaves the Omani corridor as the practical choice for most commercial shipping.

Expert readers can weigh in, but I believe JCPOA snapback sanctions are also in play. Recall that the E-3, the UK, Germany, and France triggered the snapback under the JCPOA in late 2025, which keeping the JCPOA sanctions in effect (otherwise they would have expired). Russia and China rejected the extension, based on the view that snapback implementation was procedurally invalid.1

You recall the widely-re-reported Bloomberg story, that Oman officials allegedly had told European officials that they might have to pay fees to transit the Strait of Hormuz.2

Macron is setting an even higher bar for ending the sanctions than is contemplated in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), as in demanding that Iran give up its ballistic missiles. From Reuters in on June:

France wants to play a role in talks dealing with Iran’s nuclear programme and will not approve the lifting of UN sanctions ​unless it is satisfied by the terms of a final accord, ‌its foreign minister said on Friday.

Jean-Noel Barrot, whose country is a veto-wielding member of the United Nations Security Council, told broadcaster franceinfo there would be no stability in the region unless U.S. ​talks with Iran also dealt with Iran’s ballistic missile programme and support ​for proxies.

“The return for major concessions that will be asked of ⁠Iran is the lifting of sanctions, sanctions that were taken at the ​United Nations,” he said.

“France is a permanent member of the United Nations (Security Council) so ​as was the case 10 years ago, France will have to give its approval for the sanctions to be lifted.”

Recall that like the magic $300 billion fund that the US cheekily pretended it could get non-signatories to the MOU to pony up, the promise to lift sanctions is another empty bag, with the US making commitments beyond US ability to execute. From the MOU text:

7 — The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral US sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed upon schedule as part of the final deal. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America acknowledge the critical importance of the sanctions termination issue above mentioned, and expressed their intentions to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.

Mind you, the US is merely committed to an undertaking. It can’t make doggedly independent actors like France come to heel. So this was another airy US commitment which is destined to come up short.

On the position of Oman, it seems to be sticking to its opposition to Strait of Hormuz fees, consistent with its signing a joint statement by Gulf States to that effect last week:

I know many readers are not fans of Malcolm Nance,3 but in this new talk with Mario Nawfal, he gives a lot of detail on US strikes into Iran and probable Iran tactics. Nance stresses that the US keeps hitting the same targets again and again. He speculates that Iran is using very cheap radars that they are treating as disposables to draw US fire. He also describes long form what others have explained, what it would take to invade Iran or even to merely try to take key islands in the Strait of Hormuz:

But at least according to some “big if true” sightings on Twitter, the US is moving even more military assets into the theater. This is consistent with the point made yesterday: Larry Johnson argued late last week in 13-18 DAYS: THE PRACTICAL DIESEL BUFFER… Does It Preclude Bombing Iran? that the diesel crunch was so imminent that it would prevent Trump from new strike on Iran. Yet he attacked nevertheless. While this could simply be another episode of Trump madness, it may mean the US and Israel think they have a new clever way to deliver a knockout blow.

From the body of the tweet:

We are talking about the largest airlift in US military history, which surpasses even the operation during the Iraq war in 2003 in its scale. Such a volume of cargo transfers far exceeds the usual replenishment of supplies.

All US strategic warehouses in the region are almost fully loaded and continue to be brought to their maximum capacity.

The US army is not spending billions of dollars on empty threats or demonstrative maneuvers. All this indicates preparation for a preemptive, paralyzing strike and, possibly, the start of a ground operation.

To put it mildly, this does not look consistent with the MOU requirement that the US pull out forces (as in the ones moved in beyond those normally at US bases) in 30 days.

This is also a threatening action but can the US really clear this path fast enough for it to play a part of the men and material sighted above?

Iran does face a wee issue. It can clearly control the Strait of Hormuz. The US and its allies lack the means to secure it. But at least the more political factions in Iran seem to have developed what we call endowment effect, that they now have a psychological as well as personal reputation investment in the ideas that they will get all (or at least a lot) of the MOU goodies promised by the US. Some sanity checks:

From Aljazeera’s live feed:

Iran president says country will receive $6bn of frozen funds held in Qatar

During a visit to the holy city of Qom, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian delivered the following remarks…:

  • According to the established plan, $6bn of the $12bn of our frozen funds in Qatar will be released and returned to the country.
  • Our efforts will continue to recover the remaining frozen Iranian funds.

This does not sound like progress. Pezeshkian is effectively no progress has been made as far as most of Iran’s frozen funds, even $18 of the $24 billion Iran had sought to get upfront.

On top of that the “will be released” check-is-in-the-mail statement is not convincing, since Iran was set to get that $6 billion back in 2023. From CBS in U.S. clears way for release of $6 billion in frozen Iranian funds as part of prisoner swap deal:

The Biden administration has cleared the way for the eventual release of five American citizens detained in Iran by issuing a waiver for international banks to transfer $6 billion in frozen Iranian money from South Korea to Qatar without fear of U.S. sanctions…

Secretary of State Antony Blinken signed off on the sanctions waivers last week, a U.S. official told CBS News.

And confirming our out-of-the-box skepticism about that $300 billion fund:

And from Dror Balazada on Twitter:

🚨 BREAKING | New Details from Inside the IRGC Following the Israel-Lebanon Agreement

• According to my sources, senior IRGC officials are furious with Abbas Araghchi and Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf over the negotiations with the United States.

• They believe Iran opened the Strait of Hormuz but received nothing substantial in return except limited oil sanctions relief.

• According to my sources, the IRGC is considering “heating up” the Strait of Hormuz once again.

• The anger has intensified over two additional issues: the U.S. push to route shipping through Omani waters instead of Iranian waters, and the Israel-Lebanon agreement, which they view as a violation of the memorandum of understanding.

Bottom line:
According to my sources, the IRGC believes Iran was deceived and is now reassessing its next steps.

However, Iran would have to be on an open-ended conflict situation in the Strait of Hormuz if the US were continue to contest control (which it may be able to do with a lower level of investment, say harassment as opposed to an active effort to secure the Strait of Hormuz). That seems insane given the prospect of continued diminished traffic killing the global economy. See the change in tone at Lloyd’s List today compared to its tone when the Oman channel looked to be getting steam. From Shipping risks mount despite US-Iran agreement to pause strikes:

  • Two vessel attacks since Friday have created a new air of caution around shipowners as they reassess risk to crew and vessel
  • Fragility of ceasefire has made it challenging for players to make informed decisions about strait transits, given lack of clarity around terms that could be open to interpretation
  • An analyst observed a rise in seafarers refusing transits through the strait since Friday, making transits logistically harder

But remember the UN vote at the start of the war when Iran first closed the Strait of Hormuz, censuring Iran. It received a record number of co-sponsors. Russia and China were unable to secure an amendment to include criticism of the US and Israel for attacking Iran and starting the war. Russia and China were not willing to stand against the tide of global opposition to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. They abstained rather than voting against the resolution.

It seems highly unlikely that Iran will see any of its MOU goodies unless it finds a way to compromise on the Strait of Hormuz. That means sanctions come back into place and Israel stays in Southern Lebanon and continues its cage match with Hezbollah.

Shaiel Ben-Ephraim argues on Twitter that despite the IRCG fury and the exchange of fires, the two sides are testing each other and the negotiations are still moving ahead:

The fighting around Hormuz looks like escalation toward war. It is the opposite. This is coercive bargaining inside an active negotiation, not an attempt to end one:

1) Both sides signed an MOU on June 17 and never stopped talking. The strikes started June 28, with Doha talks possibly Tuesday. You do not schedule a summit mid-war. You schedule it mid-haggle. Violence here is a tool of the talks, not a rejection of them.

2) This is Schelling 101. Force is not just about taking territory. It is a bargaining chip used to communicate resolve and shift the terms. Iran attacks a ship on the Omani route to make a point about who administers the strait. The US pounds coastal sites to answer. Each blow is a message.

3) The fight is about the text, not the territory. The MOU says Iran arranges “safe passage” and determines “administration” of the strait. Araghchi reads that as sole Iranian authority. Washington reads it as unimpeded international navigation.

4) Watch the tit-for-tat structure. Iran hits two vessels. The US hits comms and missile sites. Iran hits Kuwait and Bahrain. This is controlled reciprocity, the signature of a costly-signaling game where each side calibrates to demonstrate resolve without crossing into general war.

5) Last week in Switzerland both sides agreed to a deconfliction channel to avoid Hormuz attacks. You build off-ramps when you intend to keep driving. The escalation and the safety valve were negotiated in the same room.

6) Even Trump’s “Iran will no longer exist” post is a bargaining move, not a war plan. It raises the perceived cost of Iranian intransigence to strengthen the US position in Doha. Brinkmanship works by making the threat credible, not by executing it.

Professor Robert Pape disagrees with this cheery take in his new post, The MOU Is Dying — Worse Is Still Ahead:

Less than two weeks after it was signed, the U.S.–Iran Memorandum of Understanding is beginning to collapse.

That should not surprise anyone.

The agreement stopped the shooting for a while.

It never resolved the incentives for war.

Over the past week, Iran attacked commercial shipping exactly where I argued it would. The United States responded with new military strikes. Israel continues pressing for broader military action. Commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz remains far below normal.

The question is what happens next….

The ceasefire is collapsing. Here’s why.

The biggest mistake this week is believing the latest attacks are isolated violations of a fragile agreement.

They are not.

They are the predictable result of a deeper strategic problem.

The Iran War fundamentally changed the balance of power in the Middle East. Iran survived with enough military capability to deny American control of the Strait of Hormuz. The United States accepted an interim memorandum that stopped large-scale fighting but never resolved who would control the Gulf after the war. Israel, meanwhile, never accepted the emerging settlement and continues pressing for military action in Lebanon despite the broader framework.

That strategic disagreement has now become kinetic.

To return to the topic of Lebanon, the failure of Iran to do more than whinge is not a good look. From the landing page of PressTV’s English language version:

And another story from the landing page:

Note that nowhere does Iran threaten to take action in Lebanon (which would be a ceasefire violation) to discipline Israel. Illustrative sections:

Iran has called for the establishment of a clear timetable for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied areas of Lebanon, describing it as an essential condition for achieving a lasting agreement to end the war and ensure regional stability.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei made the remarks on Sunday in response to questions from reporters about the agreement signed between Israel and Lebanon in Washington with US mediation, as well as the implementation of the first provision of the Iran-US Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on ending the war in Lebanon…

According to the spokesman, Iran’s position is based on the principles of the United Nations Charter and the fundamental rules of international law, stressing that respect for Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is indispensable for the durability of any agreement concerning the cessation of hostilities and Israel’s occupation of Lebanese territory….

He also emphasized that Tehran had placed an end to Israel’s military offensive in Lebanon alongside the termination of hostilities against Iran as one of its principal demands and has consistently insisted on the implementation of those commitments.

Contrast this stance with further information about how the pending Israel-Lebanon agreement will further erode Lebanon sovereignity. From The Cradle on Twitter:

Channel 12: Lebanon-Israel agreement includes secret security annex, Lebanon grants Israel freedom of military operations inside ‘Yellow Line’
——
According to Israel’s Channel 12, the framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel includes a classified security annex that remained secret at the explicit request of the Lebanese government.

The report says the agreement does not set fixed implementation timelines, with every step instead conditioned on meeting specific requirements on the ground.

The report adds that there will be no automatic Israeli withdrawals, with any redeployment depending on verified progress and the results achieved in the field.

It also says the two agreed pilot zones are the only ones currently approved, and that no additional pilot zones will be established in the foreseeable future without Israeli approval.

Channel 12 further reported that the Lebanese government granted Israel freedom of military operations inside the so-called ‘Yellow Line.’

And:

Beware of bogus claims that Iran has threatened to develop a nuke:

Needless to say, there is way too much noise in the signal to be sure of what is accurate until more information surfaces. So please be patient.

All done! See you tomorrow!

_____

1 Again, this is over my pay grade, but I had been watching the snapback matter in real time last year, and I believe Russia and China are correct. The process would have had to start in late June or at worst July because Iran was allowed a certain period to make a formal reply, as in to rebut the allegations of violations that would have justified the snapback. Instead, the procedure was invoked late and as far as I can tell, Iran was never given the opportunity to submit evidence or objections.

.2 From Oman Tells Allies Ships Going Through Hormuz May Have to Pay:

While Omani officials said they will always abide by international maritime law, they added there could be fees for services related to de-polluting the strait or helping ships navigate it, the people said, asking not to be named discussing private matters. It’s unclear if Oman said all these fees would be obligatory….

Muscat has sent mixed messages about the strait’s future. On Tuesday, it published a statement with Iran in which they said they would discuss how to operate the waterway and the costs associated with that. Two days later, it signed a statement from the US and Gulf Cooperation Council that “rejected any tolls, fees, or attempts to assert control over the Strait.”

Note this article ran before the UNIMO cancelled the operation to get ships out on the Oman side. We had understood that the Oman side could not accommodate the level of traffic that the old central and new Iran-side channels can. We had thought it was due to the channel being too shallow for VLCCs, but one of the ships droned while transiting on the Oman side was a VLCC, the Panamanian-flagged Kiku. A new segment on Janta Ka cleared this up. A maritime expert commented in passing (see starting at 7:35) that Oman has a rocky coast which makes passage nearby risky. So Oman could legitimately charge navigation fees as permitted services to individual vessels.

3 The fact that Nance is a jerk and a resume burnisher does not mean that his technical takes are wrong.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Subscribe to Post Comments
10 comments

  1. cocomaan

    Seems like having Iraq and Kurds invade is an instant mess. The paramilitary PMF in Iraq is heavily Iran aligned. Basically a new civil war in Iraq on the horizon if this is what the CIA is aiming to do. Not that they really care.

    Reply ↓
  2. The Rev Kev

    ‘Jean-Noel Barrot, whose country is a veto-wielding member of the United Nations Security Council, told broadcaster franceinfo there would be no stability in the region unless U.S. ​talks with Iran also dealt with Iran’s ballistic missile programme and support ​for proxies.’

    Sounds like Macron is working for the Israelis now by insisting on these Israeli demands that never appeared anywhere in the MoU. Does he think that France will be immune from the effects of an economic crash if these talks go nowhere? He may not be personally be worried as his term as President is coming to an end and a lucrative job will be awaiting him for ‘services rendered’ but France will be living with the consequences for sure.

    Reply ↓
  3. frank

    Julian Macfarlane published the declaration of the Assembly of Experts of Iran.
    Just in case anyone is interested……..

    Reply ↓
  4. Carolinian

    Thanks for continuing to delve into this confusing mess. Meanwhile here in flyover people are putting out their bunting, crowding the highways, paying less for fuel prices which are now just above $3 at some stations. Will the flags and bunting all be seen as the lingering brand fumes before the big crash?

    Reply ↓
  5. HH

    Staging U.S. troops in Iraq for a land invasion of Iran would entail a new invasion of Iraq. We have already seen that movie. It appears that only a military catastrophe will persuade the Washington Blob that it has lost the war against Iran.

    Reply ↓
    1. The Rev Kev

      Agreed. The Iraqis aren’t going to invade as they have been there, done that and gotten the t-shirt. Besides, if Iraq tried to do that Iran would turn all their oil fields to ash. The Kurds have already refused because they have been betrayed by Washington too many times. In any case, how do you stage the troops there to carry out an invasion and the mountain of supplies that they will need without the Iranians hitting them with ballistic missiles and drones? And as far as I know, most US troops were chased out of Iraq during the war. Lastly, it sounds great while an invasion force is motoring along the flat lands of Iraq but then they come up against the first of a whole series of mountain chains in Iran. Good luck with that one.

      Reply ↓
    1. LawnDart

      I’ve finally trained myself to wait for this comment before diving into the post (by taking that time to brew more coffee… I love coffee).

      Of course, due to the very irrational nature and fantastical thinking of some the actors involved in this affair, there’s often much included that defies any reason, logic, or common sense, so I expect I’ll still be re-reading a lot of it anyway.

      Reply ↓
  7. Verifyfirst

    I was most intrigued yesterday by the video (Nawfal and Martensom) about the apparently massive shorts against the paper price of oil, apparently far exceeding any normal levels. This seems like something Bessent could easily have dreamed up to deliver the political benefit to Trump of lower short term prices (and I remember a note a few days ago that no traders are willing to go long now because Trump can open his mouth and crush them by lowering the price, “deal is near”, as he has many times now). I don’t know whose money Bessent would be using.

    The other intriguing bit later in that video was the idea that China might have decided to suppress oil prices the last few months in order to encourage the West to continue its high burn rate of oil reserves. Perhaps also some Taiwan quid pro quo, but China has been studying US capabilities as shown in Iran very closely and has likely concluded the US is not capable of defending Taiwan regardless.

    Reply ↓
  8. The Rev Kev

    ‘Drop Site
    @DropSiteNews
    🇮🇷 80 Mines Litter Hormuz Shipping Lanes as Normal Traffic Stays Frozen
    About 80 mines are scattered across the Strait of Hormuz’s main shipping lanes, the UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) estimated Friday’

    So what happens if some of these mines cut loose and start drifting around the Strait? The Ukraine dropped boatloads of mines off their coastline back in 2022 and some have been washed ashore in Black Sea nations like Romania after they got loose and at least one ship was sunk by one of these drifting mines.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *