Wars 2026 02/28 Israel-Iran War 3.0

[Saif]

US wants deal with Iran, but not ‘at any price’

Top US diplomat Marco Rubio made the statement, warning that permitting Tehran to charge fees in the Strait of Hormuz would open the door to ‘total chaos’...

www.newagebd.net

US wants deal with Iran, but not ‘at any price’
Agence France-Presse . Manama, Bahrain 26 June, 2026, 02:47

US secretary of state Marco Rubio (L) walks alongside Bahrain’s foreign minister and chairman of the GCC Ministerial Council session Abdullatif bin Rashid al-Zayani following a meeting with foreign ministers of the Gulf Cooperation Council Member States, in Manama in Bahrain on Thursday. | AFP photo

Top US diplomat Marco Rubio said on Thursday that there were limits to what Washington would accept in any deal with Iran, warning that permitting Tehran to charge fees in the Strait of Hormuz would open the door to ‘total chaos’.

Rubio was in Bahrain as part of a regional tour to reassure Gulf partners hit hard by Iran during the war on Iran which began on February 28 with a massive US-Israeli campaign of strikes against the Islamic republic.

The United States and Iran have signed a preliminary deal to end the conflict, embarking on negotiations expected to touch on thorny issues including Tehran’s nuclear programme, sanctions relief and global energy flows through the Hormuz.

But the Gulf and Israel also have longstanding concerns about Iran’s support for proxies in the region and its missile programme, and it remains unclear whether those topics will be addressed in the talks.

After meeting with Rubio on Thursday, foreign ministers from the Gulf Cooperation Council emphasised that ‘lasting regional peace and security requires addressing the full spectrum of Iran’s threats, including its ballistic missiles, drones and support of proxies’.

Earlier, Rubio had acknowledged that while the US wants ‘a deal, we don’t want a deal at any price’.

‘We want to ensure... that there is no part of this deal that’s undertaken that in any way undermines the security, the stability or the prosperity of any of our partners in the Gulf region,’ he added.

Hormuz fees

Rubio also sought to reassure the energy-rich Gulf states that the Hormuz strait, which they have relied on for decades to export oil and liquefied natural gas, would remain toll-free.

Iran imposed a blockade of the strait during the war, sparking a global economic shock, and has since said it plans to introduce what it terms maritime service fees, with the Revolutionary Guards on Thursday warning that any unauthorised crossings would be ‘dealt with’.

The United States and its allies have flatly rejected the introduction of fees or tolls, with Rubio reiterating Washington's position that Hormuz should be considered an international waterway and therefore not subject to charges.

‘International waterways do not belong to any nation state. This is a foundational principle in the world today, without which the world would be in total chaos,’ he said.

The Gulf ministers, in their joint statement, also insisted that ‘free, unconditional and unrestricted navigation’ of the strait was essential to the region.

Hormuz is a narrow stretch of water between Iran and Oman that leads to the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean, making it a chokepoint for crucial energy shipments out of the Gulf.

At Thursday’s Gulf meeting with Rubio, Oman's top diplomat Badr Albusaidi said plans for Hormuz ‘do not entail the imposition of any transit fees -- despite his government and Iran saying Tuesday that they were studying costs to be charged for services provided in the strait.

The memorandum of understanding signed in the past week by Tehran and Washington stipulated that commercial ships may transit the strait free of charge for the next 60 days.

It is unclear what arrangements will be in place after that period.

On Wednesday, Oman released a map of a new temporary shipping route running close to its coast. It said the path through the strait was coordinated with the International Maritime Organisation, a UN agency responsible for marine safety.

Iran later appeared to denounce the new corridor in a statement by the Revolutionary Guards, but did not refer to Oman specifically.

The British maritime security agency UKMTO said Thursday that a cargo ship in the Hormuz was ‘hit on the starboard side by an unknown projectile, causing damage to the bridge’, reporting no casualties.

It said the incident occurred just 14 kilometres off Oman’s coast.

‘Declaration of America’s defeat’

Iran has emerged emboldened from the war, vowing not to relinquish control of Hormuz and calling its initial deal with Washington to stop the fighting ‘a declaration of America's defeat’.

The US president, Donald Trump, met with NATO chief Mark Rutte at the White House on Wednesday and said the United States was ‘doing great’ in the negotiations.

Trump also asked Congress for nearly $88 billion in supplemental funding, mostly to cover the cost of the war, just a day after Congress called on him to end the conflict unless lawmakers explicitly authorise further military action.

Iran slammed NATO on Thursday after Rutte noted its support for the United States, with foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei accusing the transatlantic bloc of ‘complicity’ in an ‘unlawful war’.

Rubio and mediator Pakistan said technical talks between the United States and Iran were expected to resume in the coming days following a first round in Switzerland.​

 

[Saif]

US strikes Iran following attack on cargo ship in Strait of Hormuz

Israel, Lebanon sign tentative agreement to end fighting there

www.thedailystar.net

US strikes Iran following attack on cargo ship in Strait of Hormuz

Reuters, Washington

Oil tanker Al Shaffiah sails at sea near the Omani coast, as seen from Musandam, Oman, June 26, 2026. Photo: Reuters
​

• US military strikes Iran, explosion heard in southern city​
• Hormuz traffic, fighting in Lebanon threaten peace deal​
• Israel, Lebanon sign tentative agreement to end fighting there​
• ​

The US military attacked Iran on Friday in response to an Iranian drone strike on a cargo ship in the Strait of Hormuz, throwing the fate of the interim peace deal recently agreed between the two countries into question.

US Central Command said aircraft struck missile and drone storage locations and coastal radar sites. Iranian media said a projectile struck an area around a pier in Sirik, a city on the shores of the strategic waterway.

Elsewhere there were signs of progress, however, as Israel and Lebanon signed an agreement to end the fighting between Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah. Both sides framed the deal as an initial step that calls for Hezbollah to disarm and Israel to withdraw troops from Lebanon, but it was not clear how it would be enforced. Hezbollah said it would not cooperate.

IRAN WARNS GULF STATES

Tehran has insisted it would control the Strait of Hormuz and warned Gulf states not to side with Washington after Thursday's attack on a cargo ship traveling near Oman's coast. US President Donald Trump blamed the attack on Iran and said it violated last week's agreement.

Iran had expressed anger at what it said was an "interventionist, irresponsible and provocative" statement by the United States and six Gulf states that rejected its assertion that it could charge tolls on vessels transiting the strait.

"Safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz cannot be guaranteed under ambiguous arrangements, parallel routes or decision-making that does not take Iran's role as a coastal state into account," Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said on X.

Bloomberg News said Oman, which lies on the opposite side of the strait from Iran, had told allies ships going through Hormuz may have to pay. Reuters could not immediately confirm the report.

Iranian state TV said three foreign tankers attempting what it called an "unauthorised passage" of the strait were turned back after a warning from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It gave no further details.

A US official said Washington is looking into the reports.

OIL PRICES FALL

Oil prices dropped by about 3% on Friday, on course for steep weekly losses despite the conflicting interpretations of last week's interim deal between Iran and the U.S. and renewed questions over the strait, where a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies typically passes.

Saudi Aramco resumed crude loadings at its Ras Tanura terminal in the Gulf, the world's biggest oil port, after a nearly four-month halt, shipping data showed.

Fertilizer shipments through the strait have also picked up, helping to assuage concerns about a spike in global food prices.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio -- wrapping up a tour of the Gulf to reassure regional allies about the interim pact -- issued a joint statement with the Gulf Cooperation Council calling for "free, unconditional, and unrestricted navigation" in the strait without tolls or "attempts to assert control".

Iran's foreign ministry said the strait should be governed by Iran and Oman, while Ali Akbar Velayati, top adviser to Iran's supreme leader, warned Washington's Gulf allies their survival depended on Tehran's tolerance.​

 

[Saif]

The real danger in the US-Iran ceasefire

While conflicting narratives are normal, a new agreement between America and Iran lacks critical, durable enforcement mechanisms.

www.thedailystar.net

The real danger in the US-Iran ceasefire

Monica Duffy Toft

The latest U.S. military conflict with Iran appears to be over.

Washington declared success. Tehran claimed victory. Israel insisted it remains free to strike Hezbollah.

Some sticking points remain. For example, Iranian officials insist de-escalation in Lebanon was part of the deal; Israeli leaders deny it.

To most onlookers, the contradictions may seem like confusion, bad faith or evidence that the agreement is already unraveling.

But after more than two decades studying how wars end and whether the peace holds, I have learned that contradictions are often a sign the negotiations are working. The real danger lies elsewhere: in what the U.S.-Iran agreement leaves out.

The price of caving

It would be a mistake to assume the United States and Iran are bargaining only with each other.

The political scientist Robert Putnam called diplomacy a “two-level game” in which leaders negotiate abroad and at home at once. And no deal abroad survives unless it can be sold to the audience back home.

The U.S.-Iran agreement is closer to a five-level game. Washington must satisfy Iran, Israel, Congress, its Arab partners and its European allies. Tehran must satisfy Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guard, Iran’s most powerful military institution. Iran must also contain a public whose anger over sanctions can spill into the streets, and it must keep Russia and China on its side.

Every gain at the negotiating table must be sold to people who are not at the table.

That is why the messaging contradicts itself. Each side is talking past its rival to its own people. Washington calls relief from sanctions a reversible decision. Tehran stresses its sovereignty. Israel advertises its freedom to strike.

And the price of caving differs from place to place. In Washington, it might be electoral. In Tehran, factions of hard-liners may exact a heavy political price from leaders who compromise with the West, a lesson learned by President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif after the 2015 nuclear deal.

A man reads a newspaper bearing an image of the U.S. president and a headline that reads ‘Gone with the wind’ in Tehran on June 18, 2026. Photo: AFP

Diplomacy has always worked this way. The first recorded peace treaty, struck by Egypt and the Hittites – an ancient civilization centered in modern-day Turkey – after the battle of Kadesh 3,000 years ago, survives in two versions, each written in its own language for an audience at home.

In October 2025, I saw the Egyptian text carved into the walls at the Karnak complex, a vast array of temples, pylons and chapels near Luxor in southern Egypt. A copper replica now hangs outside the U.N. Security Council, where agreements like these are still negotiated today.

Peace between Egypt and the Hittites held not because the parties told the same story but because each could tell one its own people would accept.

Generous with rewards, short on penalties

Contradictory messaging, then, is not the problem. The problem is that the same multilevel pressures that scramble public narratives also shape what negotiators are willing to put into an agreement.

Each side bargains hard for rewards it can display at home and resists penalties for noncompliance that it would have to defend later. The result is a U.S.-Iran deal generous with benefits and short on enforcement.

While conducting research for my 2009 book “Securing the Peace,” I found that negotiated settlements ending civil wars break down at roughly twice the rate of wars ending in outright military victory. Although my research focused on civil wars, the broader lesson applies to war settlements more generally. They fail not because of what is written on paper but because they lack credible enforcement once implementation begins.

This weakness is hidden at the moment of signing, when all parties are still collecting the benefits an agreement promises. It surfaces later, once those rewards are exhausted and nothing exists to deter or punish defection.

The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty makes the point. It endured not simply because Egypt regained the Sinai Peninsula and Israel won recognition, but because those gains were embedded in a broader enforcement structure: phased Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai tied to compliance and sustained U.S. economic and military assistance to both countries. The treaty also deployed the Multinational Force and Observers in 1982 to monitor Sinai’s demilitarization. More than four decades later, the treaty holds.

The lesson for any U.S. settlement with Iran is clear. Durable peace depends not only on what parties gain but on the institutions and incentives built to enforce it long after the signing ceremony ends.

U.S. Vice President JD Vance attends a meeting between the United States, Iran, Pakistan and Qatar in Lake Lucerne, Switzerland, on June 21, 2026. Photo: AFP

By that standard, the U.S.-Iran agreement is built to wobble. It is generous with rewards and short on penalties. The United States lifts its blockade, issues oil waivers, releases frozen Iranian funds and promises more than US$300 billion in reconstruction.

Iran reopens the Strait of Hormuz and dilutes its enriched uranium on its own soil, while keeping the machinery to enrich more. Nearly every step confers a benefit on someone; almost none imposes a cost on the party that walks away.

Enforcement is left to a U.N. Security Council resolution that has not been written. The hardest question, enrichment, is pushed into a final deal that may never be reached.

And there is a deeper problem. The actors most capable of destroying the agreement are precisely those least constrained by it. Israel, Hezbollah and the broader network of Iranian-backed militias across the region all sit outside the agreement. They gain little by complying and risk little by defecting because they never signed. A settlement that excludes powerful spoilers has no way to make breaking it hurt.

None of this means collapse is imminent. The history of peacemaking – from Kadesh to the Dayton Accords that ended the Bosnian war, to the Belfast Agreement that halted the 30-year sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland – shows that public blowups and threats to walk out are normal stages, not proof of failure.

But surviving the turbulence is not the same as lasting. The question is not whether setbacks come. History shows they will. It is whether the parties build institutions capable of deterring defection before the rewards are spent and the incentives are gone.

That points to a clear task, and it is not the one most are watching. The task is not to reconcile competing narratives. It is to create automatic costs for anyone who returns to violence, including actors who never sat at the negotiating table.

This article was first published under the title “The danger of US‑Iran ceasefire agreement is what it leaves out” in The Conversation, on June 25, 2026.

Monica Duffy Toft is the Professor of International Politics and Director of the Center for Strategic Studies at The Fletcher School, Tufts University, specializing in global security, civil wars, and ethnic conflict.​