JUST IN: Iran Refused to Reopen Strait of Hormuz Without Permanent Peace Agreement During US Talks in Pakistan
Published on Reflecto News | World News | Diplomacy & Energy Security
Iran refused to reopen the Strait of Hormuz without a permanent peace agreement during nearly 21 hours of direct negotiations with the United States in Islamabad, according to Iranian officials familiar with the talks. The refusal marked the central obstacle that led to the collapse of the highest-level face-to-face negotiations between the two nations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution .
The United States had demanded the immediate reopening of the strategic waterway — through which approximately 20 percent of the world’s oil passes — as a core condition of the two-week ceasefire announced on April 7. Iran, however, insisted that the strait would only fully reopen as part of a comprehensive final peace agreement .
Two Irreconcilable Positions
The fundamental disagreement over the Strait of Hormuz proved insurmountable during the talks, which ended with Vice President JD Vance departing Pakistan empty-handed.
| Aspect | US Position | Iranian Position |
|---|---|---|
| Timing | Immediate reopening without delay | Only after permanent peace agreement |
| Conditions | Unconditional | Part of comprehensive final deal |
| Control | Freedom of navigation under international law | Continued Iranian regulatory role |
| Military vessels | Right of transit | Explicitly excluded; will be met with force |
Sources: Iranian officials, The New York Times, multiple news reports
The US position, articulated by Vice President JD Vance and backed by President Donald Trump, was that the ceasefire was explicitly conditioned on Iran’s agreement to the “COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING” of the strait. From Washington’s perspective, Iran’s continued restrictions on shipping represented a violation of the truce’s core terms .
Iran’s position, articulated by its negotiating team led by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, was that the strait would only fully reopen as part of a comprehensive final peace agreement. Tehran views its control over the waterway as its primary source of leverage in negotiations and is unwilling to surrender that leverage before securing concrete concessions from Washington .
Iran’s Phased Proposal Rejected
While Iran refused to fully reopen the strait immediately, Iranian officials indicated that Tehran did propose a phased approach. This would have involved gradually increasing traffic through the waterway as progress was made on other issues, with full reopening only upon conclusion of a final peace agreement .
| Iranian Proposal | Details |
|---|---|
| Phase 1 | Maintain current restricted traffic levels |
| Phase 2 | Gradually increase commercial traffic as negotiations progress |
| Phase 3 | Full reopening upon conclusion of permanent peace agreement |
| US response | Rejected; demanded immediate, unconditional reopening |
Sources: Iranian officials, The New York Times
The United States rejected this approach, insisting on immediate and complete reopening without conditions. The US position reflected a strategic calculation that any delay or condition would allow Iran to maintain its leverage throughout the negotiation process .
Why the Strait Is the Central Issue
The Strait of Hormuz is not merely a geographic chokepoint — it is the economic heart of the conflict and the most tangible expression of Iran’s strategic leverage.
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Global oil passing through daily | ~20% |
| Global LNG passing through | Significant portion |
| Pre-war daily vessel transits | 130-140 |
| Current daily transits | ~10-15 (90% below normal) |
| Stranded vessels | ~800-1,000 |
| Stranded oil (barrels) | ~172 million |
| Oil price impact | Elevated near $100/barrel |
Sources: Kpler, Lloyd’s List, S&P Global, multiple reports
The waterway’s continued restriction has caused the biggest disruption to global energy supplies in decades. Approximately 800 vessels remain stranded in the Gulf, and oil prices remain elevated near $100 per barrel, contributing to inflationary pressures worldwide .
For the United States, reopening the strait is a strategic imperative — a way to demonstrate that Iran’s leverage has been broken and that the international community will not be held hostage by Tehran’s threats. For Iran, maintaining control of the strait is a matter of survival — a way to ensure that it has a seat at the table and that its interests are respected in any final agreement .
The Ceasefire Condition: Trump’s Ultimatum
President Trump’s announcement of the two-week ceasefire on April 7 was explicit in its terms. The president stated that the suspension of military action was conditioned on Iran’s agreement to the “COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz” .
| Ceasefire Element | Details |
|---|---|
| Announced | April 7, 2026 |
| Duration | Two weeks |
| Core condition | Iran must reopen strait “completely, immediately, and safely” |
| Current status | Condition not met; Iran maintains restrictions |
| Time remaining | Approximately one week |
From Washington’s perspective, Iran’s refusal to fully reopen the strait — and its insistence on linking reopening to a final peace agreement — represents a violation of the ceasefire’s core terms. Iranian officials, however, argue that the ceasefire was always intended as a temporary pause, not a permanent resolution, and that the strait’s status must be addressed as part of a comprehensive final agreement .
The IRGC’s Warning: ‘Utmost Firmness’
During the negotiations, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy issued a forceful warning reinforcing Iran’s position on the strait.
“The IRGC Navy maintains full control over the Strait of Hormuz. Any attempt by military ships to cross the strait will be met with utmost firmness. Only non-military vessels are permitted to transit under established regulations and coordination protocols.” — IRGC Navy Command
The IRGC also explicitly denied reports that American military vessels had successfully passed through the strait, contradicting claims from US Central Command. A spokesman for Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters “strongly denied” CENTCOM’s assertion that American vessels had approached or entered the strait .
The IRGC’s warning served to reinforce Iran’s negotiating position, signaling that Tehran would not be pressured into conceding control of the waterway through military intimidation .
The Nuclear Dimension: Another Sticking Point
While the strait was the primary obstacle, the talks also foundered on nuclear issues. The United States demanded that Iran surrender its stockpile of enriched uranium — estimated at more than 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%, along with additional stockpiles at lower enrichment levels .
| Nuclear Demand | US Position | Iranian Position |
|---|---|---|
| Enriched uranium stockpile | Surrender and remove from Iran | Retain as sovereign property |
| Enrichment activities | Complete cessation | Right to enrich for civilian purposes |
| Verification | Robust IAEA inspections | Limited access; national security concerns |
Sources: Multiple news reports, Iranian officials
Iran rejected this demand, which it framed as an infringement on its sovereign rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iranian officials have consistently maintained that the country’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only and that it has the right to enrich uranium for civilian use .
The Aftermath: No Deal, No New Talks
Following the collapse of the talks, Vice President Vance departed Pakistan without an agreement. Iran has since announced that it has no plans for another round of negotiations, citing “excessive American demands” .
“The United States flew their Vice President halfway across the world to Islamabad. They demanded everything they couldn’t achieve through war. Iran said no. The talks are over.” — Iranian Foreign Ministry Statement
Iran has declared that it is in “no hurry” to return to the negotiating table, placing the onus on the United States to change course. “The ball is now in America’s court,” the Foreign Ministry stated .
What Comes Next: A Diplomatic Standoff
As the ceasefire clock ticks down, several scenarios are possible:
| Scenario | Likelihood | Implications |
|---|---|---|
| Ceasefire extended without deal | Possible | Temporary pause continues, but underlying issues unresolved |
| US makes concessions on strait | Unlikely | Would be seen as backing down from core demand |
| Iran makes concessions on strait | Unlikely | Would surrender primary leverage |
| Return to full-scale war | Elevated | Both sides preparing for potential conflict |
| Third-party mediation | Possible | China, Russia, or others could attempt to bridge gap |
The United States has begun mine-clearing operations in the strait, and President Trump has signaled that he may seek to “out-blockade Iran’s hold” over the waterway. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared that the campaign against Iran is “not over” and that Israel still has “more to do.”
For now, the strait remains largely restricted, the ceasefire remains fragile, and the world waits to see whether diplomacy can be revived — or whether the region will slide back into war.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. Did Iran agree to reopen the Strait of Hormuz during the talks?
No. Iran refused to reopen the strait without a permanent peace agreement. Tehran proposed a phased approach — gradually increasing traffic as progress was made — but insisted that full reopening would only occur upon conclusion of a final deal .
2. What did the US demand regarding the strait?
The United States demanded the immediate reopening of the strait without conditions, viewing it as a core condition of the ceasefire announced on April 7 .
3. Why is the strait so important to both sides?
For the US, reopening the strait demonstrates that Iran’s leverage has been broken. For Iran, maintaining control of the strait is its primary source of leverage in negotiations .
4. Did Iran propose any compromise on the strait?
Yes. Iran proposed a phased approach that would have gradually increased traffic as progress was made on other issues, with full reopening only upon conclusion of a final peace agreement. The US rejected this approach .
5. What did the IRGC say about the strait during the talks?
The IRGC Navy warned that any attempt by military ships to cross the strait would be met with “utmost firmness” and that only non-military vessels are permitted to transit under Iranian regulations .
6. What other issues were discussed?
The US also demanded that Iran surrender its stockpile of enriched uranium and end its enrichment program. Iran rejected these demands, citing its right to enrich for civilian purposes under the NPT .
7. What happens now?
No further negotiations are currently planned. The two-week ceasefire remains in effect but its future is uncertain. Both sides have hardened their positions, and the risk of a return to full-scale war has increased .
Stay informed with Reflecto News – Your trusted source for breaking diplomatic and energy security intelligence. Subscribe for real-time updates on the US-Iran crisis, the future of the Strait of Hormuz, and regional security developments.