Just this past weekend, the whistling of missiles piercing the night sky continued to echo over the Persian Gulf as US military facilities in Bahrain and Kuwait were targeted by Iranian precision strikes, prompting a more intense US airstrike in response. However, just when the outside world widely believed the temporary ceasefire agreement was null and void and a full-scale war was imminent, the plot took a dramatic turn—a senior US official quietly confirmed to the media on June 28th that Iran and the US had reached a tacit understanding to "suspend all recent hostilities in the Gulf region" and agreed to restart technical negotiations on the Strait of Hormuz dispute. This news was like pouring cold water into a boiling pan, instantly quelling public panic about a large-scale military conflict. But upon closer examination, does this "silent consensus" truly signify the dawn of lasting peace, or is it merely a tactical respite before both sides regroup? This article will reconstruct the complex game behind this crisis from three dimensions: the origins of the ceasefire agreement, the fundamental differences between the two sides, and the interference of third-party forces such as Israel.

Part 1: From the 14-Point Memorandum of Understanding to Resurgence of Fire—The Fragile Lifespan of a Ceasefire Agreement

The cornerstone of temporary peace: the commitment to open the Strait of Hormuz on June 17.

To understand the significance of this ceasefire, we must go back to the 14-point memorandum of understanding reached on June 17. This document, released after secret consultations between the US and Iran in Qatar, has only one core clause: to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and ensure free passage for merchant ships of all nationalities.

For the United States, this is a crucial move to alleviate soaring domestic energy prices and stabilize global supply chains; for Iran, it is a realistic option to gain diplomatic breathing room through limited concessions after suffering severe economic sanctions.

According to the memorandum, both sides pledged to "immediately and permanently cease military operations on all fronts" and launch a 60-day period of broader peace talks aimed at finally resolving long-standing U.S. concerns about Iran's nuclear program. Following the signing of the agreement, international oil prices fell, and the global shipping insurance market gradually returned to normal, seemingly indicating that peace had truly arrived.

The fragile balance was broken: a vicious cycle of attacks on merchant ships and mutual accusations . However, the inherent flaw in this agreement lies in its failure to clearly define the specific operational rules for "control of the Straits"—Iran insists that the management of navigation safety and the review of passage permits in the Strait of Hormuz fall within its sovereign responsibilities, while the United States interprets this as "unconditional freedom of passage." This ambiguity laid the groundwork for subsequent conflicts.

On June 25, Iran seized an oil tanker flying the Marshall Islands flag on suspicion of fuel smuggling. In response, the US military launched an airstrike on an Iranian speedboat base on Qeshm Island on June 26. The real trigger came late on June 27 when an Iranian ballistic missile struck a cargo ship transiting the Strait of Hormuz, injuring two sailors. The US immediately accused Iran of a "blatant violation" of the ceasefire agreement and swiftly launched retaliatory strikes against missile sites on Iranian territory. Iran, however, claimed that the cargo ship had not reported its route to the Iranian maritime surveillance center beforehand, constituting an "illegal intrusion," and that its retaliatory actions were entirely in accordance with the memorandum's provisions on "maintaining security in the Strait." Thus, with both sides sticking to their own versions of events, the military confrontation spiraled out of control.

The weekend's fierce competition and the sudden "brake"
The conflict reached its peak over the past Saturday and Sunday. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps used ballistic missiles and drones to directly attack the US military's Ali Salim Air Base in Kuwait and Jafar Naval Base in Bahrain across the Persian Gulf. Although the US claimed that all incoming targets were intercepted by the Patriot missile system, the explosions and flashes captured by local media still caused turmoil in global stock markets. US President Trump subsequently issued his strongest threat to date on social media, stating that "if Iran does not stop its provocations, the US military will complete the military operation that began four months ago," and warning that "the Islamic Republic of Iran will cease to exist."

Just as the outside world thought a large-scale US airstrike was imminent, US officials released news to the media early Sunday morning that "both sides have agreed to suspend operations." According to Axios, this round of behind-the-scenes contact was urgently mediated by the Emir of Qatar, with senior US and Iranian envoys reaching a consensus via encrypted channels in less than twelve hours: effective immediately, both sides' armed forces would cease proactive strikes against each other's targets, and technical delegations would reconvene on Tuesday in Doha, the capital of Qatar, to refine all disputed clauses in the memorandum regarding the rules of passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Thus, the intense fighting that had lasted for nearly a week came to a temporary end.

Part Two: The Root of the Problem – The Dispute Over Control of the Strait

Iran's position: Control is a matter of sovereignty and is not negotiable.

Although the battlefield has temporarily ceased, the gap between the two sides on core issues remains unbridged. At a joint press conference in Baghdad on Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi reiterated Tehran's red line in extremely clear language: the "comprehensive management and normalization of passage" in the Strait of Hormuz falls entirely within Iran's purview, and any attempt by external forces to establish passage arrangements contrary to existing understandings will only "complicate the situation, delay the restoration of normalcy in the Strait, and exacerbate tensions."

Araghchi emphasized that Iran is actively implementing the timetable outlined in the memorandum for restoring pre-war navigation capabilities in the Strait within thirty days, but this must be contingent upon Iran conducting compliance reviews of passing vessels. In other words, Iran's understanding of "freedom of passage" is not unconditional, but requires permission and control from its maritime authorities—essentially equivalent to firmly grasping control of the Strait.

The US Interpretation: Freedom of navigation is not to be compromised, and military options remain on the table . In direct counterargument, US Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz bluntly retorted on Fox News Sunday that Iran's belief that President Trump would remain indifferent to "continued attacks on international shipping" is a "serious miscalculation." Waltz stated that the precise strikes by the US military against Iranian targets over the past few nights have clearly conveyed the US's resolve—any obstruction of freedom of navigation will be met with an immediate and overwhelming military response.

Trump's own words on social media pushed the threat to its extreme, explicitly stating that "restraint is not indefinite," and that when diplomatic means are exhausted, the US military will "complete the work that has begun militarily." This effectively sends a clear signal to Iran: the US is willing to sit down and talk, but the negotiating table is not based on Iran's exclusive control of the Straits, but on a mechanism designed to ensure the safety of navigation on an equal footing. These two diametrically opposed legal interpretations are like two parallel railway tracks, unlikely to intersect in the short term.

A Larger Game Under the Shadow of the Nuclear Issue <br />It is worth noting that this strait dispute is not an isolated incident; it is inextricably linked to the deep-seated game between the US and Iran over Iran's nuclear program. While the memorandum of understanding signed in June focuses on navigation through the strait, Article 16 explicitly requires both sides to initiate substantive negotiations on the nuclear issue within sixty days. Iran recently announced the resumption of some high-enrichment uranium activities, and the discovery of traces of metallic uranium by IAEA inspectors at the Fordow underground facility has further unsettled Washington.

Some hawkish analysts in the United States believe that Iran's recent frequent provocations in the Strait of Hormuz are precisely aimed at accumulating leverage ahead of nuclear negotiations, using "navigation safety" as leverage to negotiate the easing of sanctions. Therefore, this suspension of hostilities is more likely a strategic retreat—both sides realize that escalating the conflict indefinitely before a final solution to the nuclear issue is in the long-term interest of either side.

Part Three: The Game Involved – Israel's Independent Actions and the Risks of Regional Linkage

A new front on the Lebanese border: Hezbollah underground facilities destroyed.

While the world's attention is focused on the US-Iran standoff in the Persian Gulf, Israel's military operation in southern Lebanon adds further unpredictability to the situation. The Israeli military officially announced on Sunday that its warplanes had again bombed Hezbollah underground military facilities in a village in southern Lebanon, destroying multiple targets including tunnel entrances, weapons depots, and command and communication nodes. This marks the second consecutive day of such cross-border strikes by Israel—just last Friday, Israel and Lebanon reached a separate temporary ceasefire agreement aimed at curbing sporadic clashes along the border since June.

A statement from the Israeli Prime Minister's Office claimed that the operation was a preemptive strike against Hezbollah's "attempt to deploy anti-tank missile systems to the border region" and was "unrelated" to the US-Iran agreement. However, Iran immediately condemned the Israeli attack as a provocative act of "deliberately undermining regional stability" and warned that continued attacks would "inevitably affect the effectiveness of the broader ceasefire agreement."

Iran's "Axis of Resistance" Dilemma: Allies Attacked, What Choices Should It Make?
For a long time, Iran has built a "resistance axis" in the Middle East, centered on Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen, through financial, military, and technological support. Israel's attacks on Hezbollah are essentially a series of cuts into Iran's strategic depth. At this sensitive moment when the US and Iran are attempting to de-escalate tensions through diplomatic channels, Iran faces a dilemma: if it stands idly by in the face of the attacks on Hezbollah, it will severely undermine its geopolitical credibility as a regional leader; if it intervenes, it may jeopardize the hard-won "pause" with the US, thereby expanding the battlefront from the Persian Gulf to the eastern Mediterranean coast.

So far, Tehran has only expressed "serious concern" through diplomatic rhetoric, without taking any actual military action, reflecting its cautious approach of keeping the conflict's intensity under control. However, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu seems intent on using this window of opportunity to weaken Hezbollah's military strength to the greatest extent possible. His actions are not entirely aligned with the US strategic rhythm, making it particularly difficult for Washington to coordinate the actions of its allies.

Third-Party Casualties and Condemnations from Multiple Countries: A Diplomatic Buffer Under International Pressure <br />Meanwhile, the weekend attacks have resulted in the deaths of innocent third parties. The Qatari Interior Ministry issued a statement on Sunday (June 28) confirming that a Qatari citizen's boat was "hit by shrapnel" in the Gulf region, and that the citizen unfortunately died from his injuries. Although the statement did not explicitly attribute the tragedy to any particular military action, it quickly sparked panic and anger within the Gulf states.

British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper quickly took to social media to strongly condemn all attacks against ships sailing in Bahrain, Kuwait, and the Strait of Hormuz, saying they "endanger civilian lives and restrict freedom of navigation."

The UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in sharper terms, characterized Iran's "re-hostile" actions as a "blatant violation" of the sovereignty of its neighbor.

While this series of diplomatic statements may not directly change the course of negotiations between the US and Iran, it objectively provides the US with international moral support and also puts additional public pressure on Iran, making it more inclined to accept a short-term ceasefire to avoid diplomatic isolation.

Conclusion: Is the ceasefire a period or an ellipsis?

Looking at the entire process of the US-Iran conflict's abrupt shift from intense fighting to the resumption of negotiations, it's clear that neither side had the absolute will to escalate the war indefinitely—the US was mired in domestic inflation and electoral politics, while Iran suffered from economic weakness due to long-term sanctions. Therefore, when military friction approached their respective predetermined "stop-loss lines," returning to diplomatic channels became a rational choice. However, the foundation of this ceasefire agreement is extremely fragile: the legal dispute over control of the Straits remains unresolved, the deep-seated nuclear issue has not yet been addressed, and Israel, like a "runaway horse," could ignite a new powder keg at any moment.

Sunday's "pause" was more like a halftime break than the final whistle. Every round of exchanges between Qatari technical officials at the negotiating table in the coming weeks will determine whether this narrow waterway is a route to lasting peace or a detonator to ignite the next, even bigger storm. For global energy markets and geopolitical security, the real test has only just begun.

The US-Iran conflict directly disrupted the Strait of Hormuz, a vital global energy artery, causing significant volatility in international oil prices. Following the outbreak of the conflict, supply disruption fears pushed Brent crude to nearly $120 per barrel; after the ceasefire agreement in June, the geopolitical risk premium quickly cleared, and oil prices fell back to around $70. Recent renewed conflict triggered a short-term rebound, but the gains narrowed as the two sides resumed hostilities. Given that energy infrastructure repairs and logistical recovery will take at least several months, a global supply gap of millions of barrels remains. Even with a temporary easing of tensions, oil prices will still retain a residual risk premium of $5 to $10 per barrel, and are expected to maintain a wide range of high-level fluctuations in the short term.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Question 1: What specific provisions were made in the "14-point Memorandum of Understanding" reached on June 17? Why was it violated in just ten days?

The core of the memorandum demanded that the US and Iran "immediately and permanently cease military operations on all fronts" and explicitly commit to "avoiding the threat or use of force." It also stipulated the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to ensure free passage for ships of all nations. Furthermore, both sides agreed to initiate sixty days of follow-up negotiations aimed at ultimately resolving US concerns regarding Iran's nuclear program. However, the document lacked a detailed definition of the specific operational procedures for "free passage"—Iran insisted it had the right to conduct security checks and dispatch of passing vessels, while the US interpreted it as completely unconditional passage. This ambiguity led to conflicting interpretations in actual implementation. When Iran seized an oil tanker for "failure to report," and the US retaliated by considering it "illegal harassment," mutual accusations quickly escalated into military retaliation, rendering the agreement ineffective within ten days.

Question 2: Does Iran's claim of "complete control" over the Strait of Hormuz have any basis in international law?
The Strait of Hormuz is an international strait, with parts of its waters falling within the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, coastal states have sovereignty over their territorial waters, but in international straits, all ships and aircraft enjoy the "right of transit," that is, the right to pass continuously and swiftly, and coastal states may not obstruct them. Iran's claim tends to view the strait as a "special waterway" under its jurisdiction, emphasizing that navigation must comply with its maritime regulations. However, the mainstream international view holds that the right of transit should not be subject to substantive review or pre-approval conditions. Therefore, Iran's claim of "complete control" lacks international legal support in the eyes of the vast majority of countries, which is the core legal basis for the United States' strong opposition.

Question 3: The US launched airstrikes against Iranian targets over the weekend, so why did it suddenly agree to halt hostilities? Does this mean Trump has backed down?
This does not represent a retreat, but rather a typical "strike-to-talk" tactic. The US precision strikes from Saturday to Sunday destroyed several Iranian missile launch sites and radar stations, fully demonstrating its military superiority and achieving the goal of "punitive deterrence." Meanwhile, although the Iranian ballistic missile attacks did not cause significant US casualties, they have caused widespread panic among Gulf allies, and international oil prices have fluctuated dramatically. Given the reality that both sides have crossed each other's bottom line, and that a full-scale war is not in either side's interest, achieving a temporary ceasefire through Qatar's emergency mediation allows the US to consolidate its hardline stance while buying time to further clarify the ambiguous terms in the memorandum. Trump's previous threat to "end the Iranian regime" was more of a part of maximum pressure than an actual order to wage war.

Question 4: What is the connection between Israel's actions in southern Lebanon and the US-Iran ceasefire? Will it undermine the agreement recently reached between the US and Iran?
Israel's actions, ostensibly a localized counter-terrorism operation against Hezbollah, are strategically aimed at weakening Iran's military influence along its northern border during the chaotic window of opportunity presented by the US-Iran standoff. Israel has not participated in the US-Iran ceasefire negotiations, and its decisions are not directly constrained by Washington. While the US can exert some influence on Israel through intelligence sharing and diplomatic channels, the Netanyahu government has consistently prioritized its own national security over coordination with allies. If Israel continues its high-intensity attacks on Hezbollah, it could force Iran to respond substantially to maintain the prestige of its "axis of resistance," thereby expanding the conflict from the Persian Gulf to the Lebanese-Israeli border. This would undoubtedly add a significant external variable to the US-Iran negotiations.

Question 5: What obstacles remain between this "suspension of hostilities" and a genuine peace agreement? On which issues are subsequent negotiations most likely to stall?
At least three obstacles lie between the two sides. First, there's the operational definition of control of the Straits. Both sides must reach a consensus on micro-rules such as "ship registration mechanisms," "passage review procedures," and "fast-track dispute arbitration procedures," which is far more difficult than simply declaring principles. Second, there's the "action-for-action" exchange between Iran's uranium enrichment level and the lifting of sanctions. The US demands Iran fully accept enhanced inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, while Iran demands the immediate lifting of all energy and financial sanctions. This "chicken and egg" contradiction could easily lead to a stalemate. Third, there's the coordination of interests among regional allies. Israel and the Gulf states each have different security demands, and rejection of the negotiation results by either side could unilaterally undermine the agreement. Therefore, while the technical negotiations that resumed in Qatar on Tuesday are symbolically significant, a long and arduous road lies ahead before a genuine peace agreement can be reached.

At 10:46 Beijing time, US crude oil is currently trading at $69.91 per barrel.