Around 80 mines still need to be cleared from the shipping channel in the Strait of Hormuz. This is one of the many reasons the waterway's reopening bears little resemblance to the "Ships of the World, start your engines" moment US President Donald Trump promised when he announced the US-Iran deal. 

A handful of vessels began transiting the waterway on Thursday, after the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). 

But most global shipping remains on hold, and nearly four months after its shutdown, the gap between the political announcement and reality on the ground remains wide.

According to tanker owners, the strait’s main shipping channel remains closed and unsafe.

The MoU commits Iran to making "best efforts" to ensure safe, toll-free passage for commercial vessels for 60 days, while aiming to restore full maritime traffic within 30 days. The agreement covers the shipping routes between the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman.

“The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the tactical and military obstacles and de-mining by the Islamic Republic of Iran will be instated within 30 days,” the MoU stated. 

Beyond that window, the MoU leaves the strait's long-term management to further talks between Iran and Oman, to be conducted "in line with applicable international law". 

The guarantee of free passage is temporary. Tehran has already said it intends to charge ships fees to cover the cost of managing the waterway once the 60-day period expires.

Iran may be seeking changes to the security and political arrangements governing the strait, although doing so could prove difficult given the terms of the agreement, according to Moonis Ahmar, a scholar at the University of Karachi.

“The Iranian side will try its level best to maintain some sort of control, and that could create some problems or impediments. After all, this is a very fragile MoU, and there is a 60-day implementation period. Any misunderstanding or non-implementation of the agreement could create issues,” Ahmar tells TRT World.

“What Iran intends to achieve remains unclear. If it intends to impose tolls, that would not be acceptable to the US, the Gulf countries, or the wider international community.

“Another important point is that this MoU has to be formally endorsed by the UN Security Council,” he adds.

RELATEDTRT World - The Strait of Hormuz: The chokepoint that could shake the global economy

The numbers at stake

The Strait of Hormuz is an approximately 39-kilometre (21-mile) corridor between Iran and Oman, through which, before the war, a fifth of the world's seaborne oil and gas passed daily. 

Four months ago, between 120 and 140 ships travelled through the strait each day, about half of them tankers carrying a total of 20 million barrels of oil. 

Iran has held a critical lever in the Gulf ahead of the talks, according to Professor Mesut Hakki Casin, a scholar at Yeditepe University Faculty of Law.

“A large portion of the world’s oil, around 75 percent, is located in this region, along with major gas reserves. Around 30 percent of global oil and a significant share of energy flows pass through these routes,” Casin tells TRT World.

“Iran has followed a consistent tactic since the start of the war. It managed to deceive Israeli and US air defence systems, inflicting significant damage,” Casin says.

Since the deal was announced, traffic has barely picked up. Just 26 vessels transited the Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday, according to shipping monitor Windward, while hundreds of others remain stranded on either side of the waterway. 

Iran has never confirmed whether it mined the strait. However, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Congress in early June that Iran had "mined large segments of Hormuz," without providing further details. Clearing any mines is expected to take weeks.

Mines may be the most visible obstacle, but they are not the only one.

Insurance remains a major bottleneck. Although war-risk premiums have fallen from their wartime peak, they still range from 1 to 3 per cent of the vessel's hull value, well above the roughly 0.25 percent that was typical before the crisis.

Underlying both issues is something far more difficult to resolve than a signed agreement: trust.

According to Ahmar, it will take time to address technical challenges and clear any mines that may have been laid during the conflict before shipping can fully resume normal operations.

“There is still a question mark regarding the extent to which the crisis has changed the balance of leverage in the Strait of Hormuz between Iran, the United States, the Gulf countries, and Israel,” Ahmar says.

“Otherwise, there will be a drastic change as far as Hormuz is concerned with the lifting of the blockade by both the United States and Iran.”

A US-led naval coalition downgraded its threat assessment for Hormuz this week, but the shipping trade group Bimco said "credible assurances" are still needed from both Iran and the US before traffic returns to prewar levels, warning that the situation remains volatile.

RELATEDTRT World - From Epstein files to Iran war: How the global conversation suddenly shifted

It won't be the same

Washington and Tehran remain far apart on what “reopening” the Strait of Hormuz actually means. 

Vice President JD Vance has said the waterway would reopen "in a toll-free way for the long term”. 

Iran's foreign ministry sees it differently, insisting that any charges imposed on vessels would be maritime service fees rather than what it described as "tolls".

Tehran has reinforced that position institutionally. In May, it established the Persian Gulf Strait Authority to assert oversight of the strait and has indicated plans to negotiate the waterway's future management directly with Oman. 

The legal basis for Iran’s position is less clear-cut than Tehran suggests. International law generally prohibits tolls on transit through straits, though it permits coastal states to charge for services genuinely rendered. 

Iran appears to be relying on this narrow legal opening to justify its proposed fees.

The war that brought the strait to a standstill also began under contested legal circumstances.

Article 2 of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. The US is a founding signatory to that principle.

Yet on February 28, US and Israeli strikes hit Iran, killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and triggering the crisis that has disrupted global energy markets ever since. 

Those strikes followed a pattern set earlier in 2025, when US attacks targeted Iranian nuclear facilities in Isfahan, Natanz and elsewhere, testing the limits of what the international community was prepared to tolerate.

International law, in other words, proved unable to prevent the conflict from erupting.

That context is important when assessing Iran’s actions in the strait. Under international law, Iran has no right to close an international waterway to civilian shipping. 

The transit passage regime governing Hormuz is widely regarded as part of customary international law and is therefore binding even on states that have not ratified UNCLOS. 

Tehran, however, argues that it is responding to what it considers an illegal war on its territory and that the strait falls within its sovereign jurisdiction rather than being part of the open sea.

According to Casin, Iran’s attempts to regulate transit through such a narrow waterway, including imposing controls and fees, are unlikely to be sustainable.

“Under international law, particularly the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, straits cannot be closed,” Casin tells TRT World. 

“At the same time, Article 51 recognises the right to self-defence. Many legal scholars argue that Iran is exercising this right, and therefore see the war as unlawful.”

RELATEDTRT World - Can the US afford a ground war in Iran?