Global capital markets are holding their breath for a potentially historic announcement that could come this weekend. According to senior White House officials, US President Donald Trump is formulating a new geopolitical agreement concerning Iran. The core mechanism of this deal is "phased implementation," designed to initially ease the months-long military conflict between the US and Iran by reopening the strategic Strait of Hormuz, thereby creating space for subsequent nuclear negotiations. The agreement is not expected to substantively address Iran's nuclear program, instead leaving that issue to be resolved in a 60-day negotiation process. The deal would facilitate a partial lifting of US sanctions on Iran and could potentially grant Tehran's new hardline leadership access to tens of billions of dollars in frozen assets. As the "chokepoint" for global crude oil and natural gas transportation, the anticipated reopening of the Strait of Hormuz has already triggered significant volatility in global commodity markets. Market analysts point out that if the agreement is successfully signed this weekend, the "historic oil supply crisis" triggered by the geopolitical conflict could see a substantive turning point, offering a crucial pressure release valve for persistently strained global energy prices and inflation.
The Core Framework of the Deal: Open First, Negotiate Later, Reward After
According to media reports citing sources, the core design of this memorandum of understanding is a phased implementation mechanism: immediately reopen the Strait of Hormuz without charging transit fees, extend the ceasefire for 60 days and expand its coverage to include Lebanon. In return, as Iran fulfills its "constraining obligations," it would receive phased sanctions relief and asset unfreezing. The memorandum includes a framework for addressing Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium, but any substantive action on the nuclear program would depend on a separate, detailed final agreement reached within the 60-day negotiation window. The essence of this structure is "open the energy corridor first, then discuss the nuclear issue." Unlike the "reciprocal and parallel" logic of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which involved negotiation first, then implementation, and finally sanctions relief, this memorandum reverses the sequence—nuclear weapons, the Trump administration's "core justification" for the war, have been systematically deferred to be resolved in the next two months of talks. A senior US government official, in a June 12th telephone briefing, set the US confidence level for signing at "80% to 85%." The official confirmed that the preliminary agreement includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz and lifting the US naval blockade on Iran, an Iranian "commitment to indefinitely not acquire or develop nuclear weapons," with technical details on how to remove Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium to be finalized in 60 days of "technical" negotiations. Simultaneously, the US would relax most economic restrictions, reintegrating Iran into the world economy.
However, the Key Issue Remains: Iranian Officials Have So Far Refused to Confirm Any Finalized Agreement
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Baghaei stated clearly on June 11th, "So far, Iran has not reached a final conclusion on an Iran-US agreement, and external statements regarding this agreement are speculation." Iranian state television, citing the same spokesperson, further noted that most of the text of the Iran-US agreement has been settled, but the US side's constantly changing positions and contradictory stances are hindering the process, and the situation in the Strait of Hormuz has also become more turbulent due to US actions. As of the evening of June 12th, Iran's Fars News Agency, citing a source close to the negotiation team, directly refuted claims that "the agreement has been finalized and is planned to be signed in Geneva this Sunday," calling it "complete nonsense." Two informed sources also told media that, as of now, the memorandum may not have received final approval from Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Concurrently, Iran's semi-official Mehr News Agency disclosed a purported 14-point draft memorandum of understanding being finalized, which includes the US lifting sanctions on Iranian oil exports, releasing approximately $24 billion in frozen assets, a US commitment not to interfere in Iran's internal affairs and to withdraw military forces from around Iran, and a requirement for the US and its allies to provide Iran with at least $300 billion in a reconstruction plan for war damages. Trump promptly lashed out on Truth Social, accusing Iran of "deliberately spreading false information," stating the draft content "has nothing to do" with the actual written agreement reached by the two sides, and accusing Iran of "acting in bad faith" during the negotiations. Ali Vaez, Iran Project Director at the International Crisis Group, analyzed that Trump's escalation threats serve a dual purpose: demonstrating a "tough on Iran" stance to domestic hardliners while simultaneously seeking a "victorious exit" for himself. However, the core dilemma is that Iran's first-ever direct attack on Israel last weekend made the US realize the cost of defending Israel has exceeded a controllable range, forcing Trump to accelerate his search for a "dignified exit." Yet the tension between the "halo of victory" and a "safe exit" may make the prospects for the deal's implementation exceptionally complex.
The Deal Resembles a War Pause More Than a Termination
From the currently disclosed information, this "memorandum of understanding" is a high-risk "pause button" rather than a "termination signal." For Trump, its timing window is highly politicized—June 14th coincides with his 80th birthday, after which he will travel to France for the G7 summit. Within the Republican Party, the deal has sparked intense division: hardliners like Senators Graham and Cruz question the deal, calling letting "Iran survive and continue to control the Strait of Hormuz" a "disastrous mistake," while the White House has engaged in public verbal clashes with former officials like Mike Pompeo. There is a structural tension between the political timer and the feasibility of the diplomatic text. For Iran, the deal's design allows it to obtain sanctions relief and asset unfreezing first without making substantive nuclear concessions. The memorandum framework disclosed by the Islamic Republic News Agency indicates that Iran "has not committed to relinquishing control of the Strait of Hormuz, nor has it committed to returning to the pre-US/Israeli military action status quo." Sanam Vakil, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House, commented that the two sides still distrust each other and are unwilling to make substantive concessions. "Any agreement that delays the most critical issues and attaches conditions will return both sides to a nominally fragile ceasefire framework, which could explode into confrontation again at any moment if one side crosses a line." Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, warned Trump more directly to proceed cautiously and not squander the influence he has accumulated after successive military strikes on Iran. "The danger is they'll agree to A to get the money, then agree to B to get the money, then agree to C for sanctions relief, and then they'll drag out the negotiations," Dubowitz said. "If you get stuck in a negotiation quagmire without being prepared to return to large-scale military operations, that could be fatal."
Energy Markets Under "Dual Realities": Traffic Rebounds, But Prices Hold Off on Celebrations
The market reaction to the potential US-Iran deal is not a simple downturn but presents a multi-layered structure: a significant rebound in traffic through the Strait of Hormuz coexists with underlying warnings on oil price fundamentals. At the close of trading, the price for July delivery of West Texas Intermediate crude on the New York Mercantile Exchange fell by $2.83 to settle at $84.88 per barrel, a decline of 3.23%. The price for August delivery of Brent crude on the London ICE Futures Europe exchange fell by $3.05 to settle at $87.33 per barrel, a drop of 3.37%. According to energy data analytics firm Vortexa, in the first 10 days of June, the daily average of non-Iranian crude oil exported via the Strait of Hormuz reached at least 1.8 million barrels, a 50% increase from May's approximately 1.2 million barrels per day. However, Iranian crude shipments, affected by US sanctions, are nearly at a standstill, with no Iranian crude passing through the strait during the same period. Furthermore, a significant amount of shipping traffic is currently using the "dark sailing" mode with Automatic Identification System transponders switched off—this method accounted for 65.2% of total strait traffic in May—meaning the actual scale of energy trade may be far higher than publicly monitored data suggests. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright publicly stated on Tuesday that oil transport activity in the Strait of Hormuz has "rebounded very significantly" and will "continue to grow." Trump himself also disclosed that the US executed a "secret escort mission" last month, assisting the safe passage of approximately 100 million barrels of oil (over 2.4 million barrels per day on average) through the strait.
However, even with traffic restored to current levels, the supply gap remains staggering. Before the conflict, the Strait of Hormuz routinely carried about 20 million barrels per day of crude oil and refined products, accounting for 20% of global seaborne oil trade. Data from the International Energy Agency shows that due to the strait's "obstruction," Gulf countries' oil production is 14.4 million barrels per day lower than pre-war levels, with cumulative supply losses exceeding 1.2 billion barrels. A more alarming signal comes from the US Energy Information Administration. The EIA's latest Short-Term Energy Outlook, released Tuesday, warns that OECD petroleum inventories are approaching their lowest recorded levels since 2003—projected to fall below 2.3 billion barrels in December, sufficient to cover only 50 days of global demand, the lowest coverage rate since 2003. The EIA, for the first time, forecasts an annual contraction in global oil demand in 2026, expecting a decrease of 1.1 million barrels per day, marking the first shift from growth to decline since the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic shock. The Brent spot price average for June-July is projected to reach $105 per barrel, showing a significant premium to futures prices for the same period, directly reflecting that tight short-term supply conditions remain difficult to reverse before the deal is finalized. OPEC also lowered its 2026 global oil demand growth forecast for the second consecutive month on Thursday to 970,000 barrels per day, well below the previous expectation of 1.17 million barrels per day. OPEC+ production shrank further in May, with Iran's decline being the most significant; Iranian crude and condensate exports in May have fallen to their lowest level in at least six years.
Faced with this contradictory pattern of "falling prices but tightening fundamentals," analysts at JPMorgan Chase point out that the actual volume of secret shipments passing through the strait may be higher than public data suggests—currently, there may still be about 2 million barrels per day of crude oil being shipped out clandestinely on tankers with their AIS switched off. Furthermore, if the US and Iran formally sign an agreement and US oil sanctions on Iran are lifted alongside the blockade, demand for compliant Very Large Crude Carrier capacity would surge dramatically. At that point, the oil shipping market could face a severe shortage of available vessels.
Comments