U.S.-Iran Agreement: The Loose Ends That Worry Israel and the Risks to the Global Economy

The agreement provides for the end of military operations, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the gradual easing of certain sanctions against Iran, as well as the launch of a new round of negotiations regarding the country’s nuclear program. However, many of the critical points remain unclear, while several details are reportedly to have been carried over to subsequent technical agreements that have not yet been made public.

The biggest question mark: What was actually agreed upon regarding the Strait of Hormuz?

The Strait of Hormuz is the planet’s most important energy chokepoint. Approximately one-fifth of global oil consumption passes through this passage, as well as enormous quantities of liquefied natural gas. Any change in their operating status has immediate consequences for international markets.

Officially, the agreement provides for the free and safe passage of ships. However, this does not answer the fundamental question: who will guarantee security, and at what cost? Iran had already left open the possibility of creating a special mechanism to charge fees for security, escort, or traffic management services. There may be no “tolls” today, but nothing precludes the emergence of a different charging model in the future.

Israel argues that the agreement leaves a door open that could later be turned into a lever of pressure against the West. If Tehran gains the ability to influence, even indirectly, the cost of ship transit, it will acquire a powerful geopolitical tool.

The economic bomb of potential transit fees

Even a small fee per barrel of oil could have enormous repercussions. Every day, tens of millions of barrels of oil and large quantities of natural gas pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

A charge of around one dollar per barrel would translate to billions of dollars in annual revenue. This cost would not be absorbed by producers. It would be passed on to shipping companies, refineries, transport companies, and ultimately to consumers.

Europe, which is already facing high energy costs, could be confronted with a new wave of inflationary pressures. Prices for fuel, transportation, and everyday goods would be affected almost immediately.

The problem becomes even greater when one considers that the energy market operates on the basis of expectations. Even the possibility of future charges can increase risk premiums and drive up prices long before any measures are implemented.

Is a dangerous international precedent being set?

This is perhaps the most serious argument raised by those who criticize the agreement.

If the logic that a state can collect fees or financial compensation for transit through an international waterway is accepted, then it could set a precedent that would affect the entire planet.

The debate is not just about the Strait of Hormuz. It concerns every strategic maritime passage worldwide. If the model is deemed successful, other countries could cite security, environmental protection, or traffic management reasons to impose similar fees.

This development could lead to a gradual erosion of the principle of freedom of navigation, which has been a cornerstone of international trade for decades.

Why Israel believes Tehran has bought time

Israel’s second major objection concerns the nuclear program.

Despite assurances of new verification mechanisms, the agreement does not appear to provide for the complete and immediate dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Instead, it allows time for further negotiations, leaving open the question of what the limits on uranium enrichment will ultimately be.

For Israel, this concession is particularly dangerous. Israel’s strategy has long been based on preventing Iran from coming anywhere near acquiring nuclear weapons.

Critics of the agreement argue that Tehran has secured economic breathing room without providing corresponding guarantees that it will permanently abandon its nuclear ambitions.

Ballistic missiles remain on the table

Another issue of concern is the limited reference to Iran’s ballistic missile program.

Long-range missiles are a key element of the country’s power strategy. Even without a nuclear warhead, they serve as a significant deterrent and leverage.

The absence of clear restrictions leads many analysts to conclude that the agreement addresses only part of the problem, not the whole of it.

The Day After in the Middle East

The agreement may halt an immediate conflict, but it does not resolve the region’s deeper divisions.

Tehran continues to wield significant influence on various fronts in the Middle East, while Israel believes that threats to its security have not been eliminated.

At the same time, the Arab Gulf states are closely monitoring developments. Although they desire stability and secure energy flows, they would not want to see Iran gain increased geopolitical influence through the Strait of Hormuz.

Peace may prove temporary

The picture presented today is one of a significant diplomatic success. However, the details that have not yet been made public may prove to be more significant than what we know.

The question is not only whether the Strait of Hormuz will remain open. The real question is who will control the terms of their operation in the coming years and whether the international community will face a new model of geo-economic pressure.

For Israel, the agreement does not mark the end of the crisis but the beginning of a new period of uncertainty. And as long as the critical issues regarding the nuclear program, missiles, and the status of the Strait of Hormuz, the voices arguing that today’s peace may conceal tomorrow’s conflicts will only grow louder.