Hormuz Reopens but Lebanon Strikes Expose Fragile Core of US–Iran Deal
The first tankers have transited the Strait of Hormuz after Washington and Tehran struck a deal that includes a $300 billion reconstruction plan for Iran and a temporary fee waiver for ships. But Israeli strikes in Lebanon and Netanyahu’s refusal to accept a permanent ceasefire condition show how quickly the agreement’s promise of stability could fray, leaving tanker crews, governments, and markets guessing about how long this calm will last.
The sight of tankers edging back through the Strait of Hormuz on 18 June offers a concrete, if cautious, reprieve for global shipping and energy markets after months of confrontation between the United States and Iran. But Israeli air operations in Lebanon and political pushback from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against a key condition of the US–Iran memorandum of understanding (MOU) are already testing whether the narrow channel at the heart of global oil flows can stay open without a wider regional bargain.
According to public statements by both capitals, the new MOU has unlocked an initial reopening of Hormuz, with Iran announcing that it will not charge for ship passage through the strait for 60 days. The first tankers began crossing on Wednesday, marking a de-escalation after a US-led blockade and Iranian threats had put one-fifth of the world’s oil trade at risk. The agreement also envisages a $300 billion reconstruction framework for Iran, to be developed by the US and partners, though the details, timelines, and conditionality of that plan remain opaque.
Yet the security picture around Israel and Lebanon shows why no one involved can treat the deal as a stable end-state. Israeli UAV strikes were reported on Wednesday in several villages in southern Lebanon, including Tibnin, Zbedein and areas between Hadatha and Kharayeb. Local channels reported at least one person killed and others wounded in Separate drone strikes on vehicles, and alleged that an Israeli drone dropped grenades on people in Beit Yahoun, causing casualties. These reports cannot all be independently verified, but they align with a pattern of persistent Israeli operations near the border even after officials announced a ceasefire arrangement.
At the political level, Netanyahu has told US President Donald Trump that Israel does not consider itself bound by the MOU’s requirement for an immediate and permanent end to the war in Lebanon, according to accounts of their conversations carried by US media. Israeli officials are also depicting a deep “security zone” in southern Lebanon: a map released by the Israel Defense Forces shows an area extending around 10 kilometres inside Lebanese territory where it says its forces are operating to remove threats and defend Israel’s north. Local observers say the map overstates the ground actually controlled, reflecting more an ambit of potential operations than established lines.
For Lebanese civilians in the south, this mix of cartography and airstrikes turns villages and roads into de facto front lines. Drone-fired munitions striking vehicles and alleged grenade drops from UAVs leave residents exposed to a war in which the boundaries between declared ceasefire zones and active battlefields blur by the day. For ship captains now steering through Hormuz, the calculation is different but no less personal: each voyage weighs the promise of free passage and reduced insurance costs against the risk that a single miscalculation on the Israel–Lebanon front could drag Iran’s regional network of allies back into confrontation.
Strategically, the MOU hinges on more than just US and Iranian signatures. Tehran’s position, outlined via its foreign ministry to a Lebanese outlet, is that the agreement obliges the “other side” to guarantee Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, which from Iran’s perspective means a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese soil. That reading sets up a direct clash with Netanyahu’s stance, and with the IDF’s attempt to normalize a 10-kilometre operating zone across the UN-demarcated border. If that contradiction is not resolved, the deal’s core trade – sanctions and military pressure for de-escalation – could quickly unravel.
Regional powers are already warning against trying to bolt new security arrangements for Hormuz onto a fragile ceasefire elsewhere. Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister has publicly argued there were no navigational or safety problems in the strait before the conflict and questioned why Gulf states should accept “novel” management structures born from crisis. China, describing itself as a partner to Iran and a supporter of the deal, is urging all parties, “including Israel”, to focus on implementing the agreement and moving toward a second phase of negotiations rather than seeking to reopen the terms.
Hormuz risk does not need a closure order to matter; it only takes enough uncertainty to make shippers, insurers and energy ministries hesitate. Every UAV strike in southern Lebanon and every Israeli statement signalling that its forces will stay put erodes confidence that Tehran will keep offering free passage and keep distant militias on a tight leash. For buyers of Gulf crude, the emerging question is whether the billions promised for Iran’s reconstruction will buy calm around the strait, or whether a Lebanon front in flux will pull Hormuz back to the brink.
The next indicators to watch are whether Israeli operations inside Lebanon intensify or contract, how Tehran responds to perceived violations of Lebanese sovereignty, and whether the initial 60-day fee waiver for Hormuz is extended or allowed to lapse. Any sign that Israel and Iran – directly or via proxies – are testing each other’s red lines could rapidly feed back into shipping lanes, insurance pricing and, ultimately, the durability of the US–Iran deal itself.
Sources
- OSINT