Despite a preliminary peace agreement between the United States and Iran, major technical, logistical, and political obstacles continue to stand in the way of fully restoring maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most critical energy chokepoints.
Strait of Hormuz reopening remains highly uncertain
“Ships of the world, start your engines. Let the oil flow.”
With those words posted on Truth Social last Sunday, U.S. President Donald Trump announced the agreement between the United States and Iran, declaring the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
Under the memorandum of understanding, expected to be signed on Friday, the United States and Iran have committed to reopening the strait and restoring maritime navigation, which has been largely disrupted since late February. Returning traffic volumes to pre-war levels, however, will not be straightforward. Significant technical, logistical, and political challenges remain.
Prediction market Kalshi currently estimates a 51% probability that traffic will return to normal before August 1 and a 68% probability before September 1.
Is the Strait of Hormuz really reopening?
For now, intelligence and analytics firm Kpler has not detected any meaningful increase in activity through the Strait of Hormuz. Shipping traffic continues to operate below normal commercial levels despite the diplomatic progress announced by both sides.
As of June 15, only five confirmed crossings had reportedly taken place. Several operational issues remain unresolved, including transit security, navigation fees, and procedures to guarantee safe passage.
No new attacks on commercial vessels have reportedly been recorded since June 10. While conditions appear more stable, the limited number of crossings suggests that shipping companies are still waiting for clearer guarantees before resuming normal operations.
The threat posed by naval mines
Iran is widely believed to have deployed naval mines along the main shipping channel of Hormuz, which lies between Iran to the north and the territories of the United Arab Emirates and Oman to the south.
The Joint Maritime Information Center and Oman’s Maritime Security Center have issued multiple warnings regarding floating objects suspected to be mines. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also told the Senate that Iran had laid mines across extensive sections of the strait.
Removing these mines is considered essential before maritime traffic can return to pre-war levels. Experts estimate that a full clearance operation could take anywhere from several weeks to six months.
It remains unclear who would take responsibility for such an effort and how minesweeping vessels would be protected. Tehran has already stated that it cannot accurately locate all the mines it deployed and lacks the capability to remove them independently.
The United Kingdom and France have sent naval assets to the region to support any future demining mission, while Japan has also expressed willingness to participate.
Historical precedents highlight the scale of the challenge. During the “Tanker War” of the 1980s, fought within the broader Iran-Iraq conflict, both countries mined parts of the Persian Gulf, forcing the United States to conduct escort operations. During the First Gulf War, Iraq again deployed mines, and the subsequent clearance mission involved eight countries.
The debate over transit fees
Hormuz is a natural waterway encompassing the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. Historically, vessels have been free to transit without paying tolls.
Before the conflict that began in February, no official transit fees existed. However, some Asian shipping companies and smaller operators were reportedly paying Iranian authorities unofficially for passage. The think tank Institute for the Study of War described the practice as a form of protection racket.
Uncertainty remains over whether future tolls will be imposed.
On Sunday, Trump stated that the Strait of Hormuz would reopen and remain “permanently toll-free.” The following day, however, Iranian officials reportedly signaled plans to charge fees for unspecified services.
According to Iranian news agency Fars, the new agreement with the United States could place the strait under joint management by Iran and Oman, including potential “service fees.” Unlike Hormuz, however, the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal are artificial waterways that require extensive maintenance and infrastructure investments by sovereign states.
During the conflict, Iran sought to reinforce its claims over the strait by establishing the Persian Gulf Strait Authority, an entity intended to oversee safe-passage permits.
In response, International Maritime Organization Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez described the move as unlawful.
“Any introduction of transit tolls would violate international law,” Dominguez said.
Speaking to Bloomberg, Kpler analyst Dimitris Ampatzidis raised several unresolved governance questions: “Who would enforce such a system? How would it work? How would fees be collected? And what do the other Gulf countries think about it?”
A gradual normalization remains the most likely outcome
Some of these questions may begin to find answers during negotiations between Iran and the United States that are expected to continue after the memorandum is signed.
For now, however, nothing guarantees that Tehran will allow vessels to pass through the Strait of Hormuz as freely as they did before the conflict.
“The key point is that the commercial shipping system will likely normalize gradually,” Ampatzidis concluded.
Moreover, if negotiations break down again, Iran could resume attacks on commercial vessels, recreating the uncertainty that disrupted one of the world’s most strategically important maritime corridors in recent months.
