The key turning point in the US-Iran conflict? Trump is considering a "phased" agreement: first opening the Strait of Hormuz, then gradually lifting sanctions.

Global capital markets are holding their breath in anticipation of a potentially historic bombshell announcement this weekend. According to high-ranking White House officials, U.S. President Donald Trump is brewing a new geopolitical agreement aimed at Iran. The core mechanism of the agreement is "phased implementation," with the aim of gradually easing the months-long military conflict between the U.S. and Iran by first reopening the strategic chokepoint - the Strait of Hormuz, and creating space for future nuclear negotiations. The agreement is not expected to address Iran's nuclear program substantially, but rather leave the issue to be resolved in the negotiations over the next 60 days. The agreement will push for the partial lifting of sanctions against Iran by the U.S., potentially allowing the new hardline leadership in Tehran to access billions of dollars in frozen funds. As the "throat" for global oil and gas transportation, the anticipated reopening of the Strait of Hormuz has already caused significant fluctuations in global commodity markets. Market analysts point out that if the agreement is successfully signed this weekend, the previously looming "historical oil supply crisis" caused by geopolitical conflicts could see a substantial reversal, and global energy prices and inflation, which have been under pressure, are likely to receive a significant relief valve. The core structure of the agreement: release first, negotiate later, then reward According to media reports citing sources, the core design of this memorandum of understanding is a phased implementation mechanism: immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz without charging tolls, extending the ceasefire by 60 days and expanding it to cover Lebanon as a condition for Iran's "compliance obligations," and obtaining phased sanctions relief and asset unfreezing. The memorandum contains a framework for addressing Iran's enriched uranium stockpile issue, but any substantive nuclear actions will depend on a comprehensive final agreement reached during the 60-day negotiation window. The essence of this framework is "release energy channels first, then discuss nuclear issues." Unlike the "mutually parallel" logic of negotiating first, then complying, and finally lifting sanctions of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), this memorandum of understanding adopts the opposite time sequence - the "core reason" of the Trump administration's war on nuclear weapons has been systematically postponed to be resolved in the two-month negotiation process. A senior U.S. government official set the U.S.'s signing confidence at "80% to 85%" in a telephone briefing on June 12. The official confirmed that the preliminary agreement includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz and lifting the U.S. naval blockade on Iran, Iran "committing indefinitely to not acquire or develop nuclear weapons," technical details on how to remove Iran's high-enriched uranium stockpile will be finalized in the 60-day "technical" negotiation, and the U.S. will relax most economic restrictions to reintegrate Iran into the global economy. However, the key issue is that Iran has so far refused to confirm any final agreement reached. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Baqaei stated on June 11, "So far, Iran has not reached a final conclusion on the Iran-U.S. agreement, and the claims about the agreement made by the outside world are all speculation." The Iranian state television cited the spokesperson saying on the same day that while most of the text of the Iran-U.S. agreement has been finalized, the U.S. continuously changing positions are hindering the process, and the situation in the Strait of Hormuz has become more volatile due to U.S. actions. As of the evening of June 12, the Iranian Fars News Agency cited a source close to the negotiating team who directly refuted claims that the "agreement has been finalized and planned to be signed in Geneva on Sunday," calling it "completely groundless." Two informants also told the media that the memorandum may not have obtained the final approval of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, at this point. At the same time, the semi-official Iranian news agency Mehr News Agency disclosed a draft memorandum of understanding that is said to be under negotiation, including the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil exports, releasing around $24 billion in frozen assets, the U.S. promising not to interfere in Iran's internal affairs and withdraw military forces from around Iran, and the U.S. and allied countries providing Iran with a reconstruction plan of at least $300 billion for war losses. Trump subsequently criticized Iran on Truth Social for "intentionally spreading false information," stating that the contents of the draft have "no relation" to the actual written agreement reached by both parties, and accusing Iran of "lacking integrity" in the negotiation process. Ali Vaez, Project Director for Iran at the International Crisis Group, analyzed that Trump's escalation threats are on one hand to demonstrate a "tough stance towards Iran to the domestic hardliners," while on the other, seeking a "victory-style exit" for himself. However, the core dilemma is that Iran launched a direct attack on Israel last weekend, prompting the U.S. to realize that the cost of defending Israel has become uncontrollable, forcing Trump to expedite the search for a "dignified exit," but the tension between the "victory halo" and the "safe exit" may complicate the prospects of the agreement before it is finalized. The agreement is more like a temporary pause in the war than a resolution From the information revealed so far, this "memorandum of understanding" is a high-risk "pause button" rather than a "final point." For Trump, the time window is highly politicized - June 14 happens to be his 80th birthday, and he will then travel to France to attend the G7 summit. Within the Republican Party, the agreement has sparked intense divisions: Senators Graham and Cruz and other hawks have questioned the agreement as a "disastrous mistake" allowing Iran to survive and continue controlling the Strait of Hormuz, leading to open war of words between the White House and former senior officials like Pompeo. There is structural tension between the political clock and the feasibility of the diplomatic text. For Iran, the design of the agreement allows it to receive sanctions relief and asset unfreezing without making substantive nuclear concessions. The framework of the memorandum of understanding revealed by the Islamic Republic News Agency shows that Iran "has not committed to relinquishing control of the Strait of Hormuz or restoring the situation to pre-U.S.-Israeli military action." Sinaan Wakil, Director of the Middle East Program at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, commented that currently, both sides still lack mutual trust and are unwilling to make substantive concessions; "any agreement that delays the most crucial issues and adds conditions will return both sides to a nominally fragile ceasefire, which could erupt again at any time if either side crosses a line." Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, warned Trump directly that he must proceed cautiously and not waste the influence he has accumulated from successive military strikes against Iran. "The danger is that they will first agree that A gets money, then agree that B gets money, then agree that C gets sanction waivers, and then they will delay the negotiation process," Dubowitz said, "once they get stuck in the negotiation quagmire and are not prepared to return to large-scale military action, it will be deadly." Energy market under "double facts": shipping volume on the rise, but prices hesitant to celebrate The market's response to the U.S.-Iran agreement is not a simple decline, but a nuanced response with a discernible structure: a significant increase in shipping volume through the Strait of Hormuz alongside warnings about the fundamental outlook for oil prices. At the close of the day, light crude oil futures for July delivery on the New York Mercantile Exchange fell $2.83 to $84.88 per barrel, a decline of 3.23%; while Brent crude oil futures for August delivery in London fell $3.05 to $87.33 per barrel, a decline of 3.37%. According to energy data analysis firm Vortexa, in the first 10 days of June, the daily average non-Iranian crude oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz reached at least 1.8 million barrels, a 50% increase from around 1.2 million barrels per day in May. However, Iranian crude oil shipments have almost come to a halt due to U.S. sanctions, and no Iranian oil has passed through the strait during the same period. Additionally, a large number of shipping transactions are currently using a "blind navigation" mode with the automatic identification system turned off - this mode, which accounted for 65.2% of the total transit through the strait in May, means that actual energy trade volumes may be much higher than publicly monitored data. U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright publicly stated on Tuesday that oil shipping activities through the Strait of Hormuz have "significantly rebounded" and will "continue to grow." Trump himself also revealed that the U.S. carried out "secret escort missions" last month, assisting around 100 million barrels of oil (over 2.4 million barrels per day) to safely pass through the strait. However, even with shipping volumes restored to current levels, the supply gap remains alarming. Prior to the conflict, the Strait of Hormuz carried approximately 20 million barrels per day of crude oil and petroleum product transport, accounting for 20% of the global oil shipping volume. Data from the International Energy Agency shows that as a result of the strait's "blockage," daily oil production in Gulf countries has fallen by 14.4 million barrels, with cumulative supply losses exceeding 1.2 billion barrels. A more concerning signal comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The EIA's latest Short-Term Energy Outlook warns that OECD oil stocks are approaching their lowest levels recorded since 2003 - expected to drop below 2.3 billion barrels in December, only enough to cover 50 days of global demand, the lowest coverage rate since 2003. The EIA predicts for the first time a decline in global oil demand in 2026, with daily reductions of 1.1 million barrels, the first shift from positive to negative since the impact of COVID-19 in 2020. The average Brent spot price for June to July is expected to reach $105 per barrel, a significant premium over future prices for the same period, reflecting the continued tight supply situation that is unlikely to be reversed until the agreement is finalized. OPEC also adjusted its forecast for global oil demand growth in 2026 for the second consecutive month, lowering it to 970,000 barrels per day, far below the previous expectation of 1.17 million barrels. OPEC+ production further contracted in May, with the most significant decline seen in Iran, with Iranian crude and condensate oil exports in May falling to their lowest level in at least six years. Faced with this "declining prices, tightening fundamentals" contradiction, analysts at JPMorgan point out that the actual secret shipping volumes through the strait may be higher than public data - currently, around 2 million barrels per day of oil may be secretly shipped out by tankers turning off their automatic identification systems. Once the U.S. formally signs the agreement with Iran, if U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil are lifted along with the blockade, the demand for compliant very large crude carrier capacity will rapidly increase, and the oil shipping market may soon face a situation where "finding a ship is difficult."