On May 25, The New York Times (NYT) published a sensational report, citing a source close to the negotiations, stating that the United States and Iran had reached an agreement in principle to open the Strait of Hormuz. If confirmed, this announcement could mark a significant turning point in the tense relationship between the two countries and have far-reaching implications for the global economy and geopolitics.

 The Strait of Hormuz is more than just a narrow body of water connecting the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. This is one of the most critical sea routes in the world, through which a significant portion of the world's oil supply passes. Any restriction or blockade of this strait would immediately lead to higher energy prices and significant economic turmoil for many countries.

 The details are elusive, but a fundamental agreement has been reached.

 According to the NYT, the key point is the achievement of a "fundamental agreement." This means that the parties have likely reached a consensus on the main issues, but the specific details, implementation mechanisms, and guarantees still need to be worked out. It is in these details, as is often the case in diplomacy, that the crux of the matter lies.

 The issue of control: the main unresolved contradiction?

The publication pays special attention to the uncertainty surrounding the future control of the strait. Will Iran retain any degree of control over this strategically important corridor? This is perhaps the most sensitive and complex aspect of any negotiations between Washington and Tehran.

The U.S. position: Historically, the U.S. has advocated for free navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. Any restriction on Iran's sovereignty over the waters adjacent to its coast is seen as a threat to this principle. In the event of an agreement, the United States is likely to seek guarantees of unrestricted passage for all vessels, including military vessels.
Iran's Position: For Iran, control over the Strait of Hormuz is an important element of national security and geopolitical influence. Tehran has repeatedly used the Strait as a tool of pressure, hinting at the possibility of blocking it in response to sanctions or military threats. An agreement that deprives Iran of this leverage would be painful for them.
Possible scenarios and consequences

If an agreement is indeed reached, several possible scenarios can be envisaged:

Sharing responsibilities: The United States and Iran may agree to jointly ensure the security of the strait, possibly with the involvement of international forces. This could help de-escalate tensions and guarantee unrestricted navigation.
Iranian concessions in exchange for sanctions relief: It is likely that any Iranian concessions regarding control over the strait will be accompanied by expectations of significant easing or complete lifting of American sanctions, which have severely damaged its economy.
Limited but symbolic control: It is possible that Iran will retain certain symbolic rights that do not affect international shipping interests. This could be a compromise that allows both sides to save face.
On the path to de-escalation or a new round of intrigue?

Reaching a fundamental agreement on the Strait of Hormuz, even if it is not yet detailed, could send a powerful message to the world about the desire for de-escalation. Reducing the risks of blocking a vital transportation corridor will have a positive impact on oil prices and overall stability in the Middle East.

 However, as always, there is a degree of skepticism. The relationship between the United States and Iran has always been characterized by a high level of mistrust and hidden motives. It is necessary to wait for official confirmations and details to understand the true extent of this potential breakthrough. It is possible that this is merely a tactical move by one side or the beginning of a new round of complex negotiations, where every detail will be crucial.

The global community will be watching developments with bated breath. Not only the future of the Strait of Hormuz, but also the stability of the entire region, depends on how deep the agreements are and how they are implemented.