By Elsie Kamsiyochi
The first signs of recovery in global energy markets emerged on Thursday as three Saudi supertankers successfully passed through the Strait of Hormuz, only hours after U.S. President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed a landmark agreement aimed at ending months of conflict that had shaken the Middle East and disrupted global oil supplies.
The tankers, carrying a combined six million barrels of crude oil, became the first major commercial vessels to transit the strategic waterway since the peace accord officially came into force. Their passage marked a significant milestone for international shipping and energy markets, which had endured months of uncertainty as military tensions and naval restrictions threatened one of the world’s most important oil transportation routes.
The agreement, signed ahead of schedule on Wednesday, immediately opened the Strait of Hormuz to commercial traffic and ended the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports. Analysts described the move as a major breakthrough, though industry experts cautioned that a full return to normal shipping operations could take weeks as authorities work to verify safe passage routes and clear any remaining maritime hazards.
Evidence of growing confidence among shipping companies was visible almost immediately. Several vessels that had previously concealed their locations by disabling tracking systems began broadcasting their positions openly, signaling plans to cross the strait. Financial markets responded positively, with Brent crude oil prices falling more than 2% to below $78 per barrel, their lowest level since the conflict erupted earlier this year.
The memorandum signed by Washington and Tehran establishes a 60-day negotiation period during which both sides will attempt to reach a comprehensive settlement to the war that began in February when the United States and Israel launched military operations against Iran. While supporters of the deal view it as a major diplomatic achievement capable of preventing further regional escalation, the situation in neighboring Lebanon is already testing the durability of the agreement.
A central provision of the memorandum explicitly calls for a permanent end to hostilities in Lebanon and emphasizes the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. However, Israel was not directly involved in the negotiations and has publicly indicated that it does not consider itself bound by the terms concerning Lebanon.
Israeli forces launched fresh airstrikes across southern Lebanon on Thursday morning, casting doubt over whether the broader peace initiative can survive without a corresponding halt to military operations there. Lebanon has been one of the most heavily affected fronts in the regional conflict, with more than one million people displaced and entire communities devastated by months of fighting.
The Israeli military, which invaded southern Lebanon in March as part of its campaign against Hezbollah, has expanded its presence in the area and released a new map showing an enlarged security zone under Israeli control. Israeli officials have stated that discussions with Washington are ongoing regarding the future of troop deployments in Lebanon.
According to officials familiar with the negotiations, Israel is engaged in intense talks with the United States aimed at preserving its military presence in southern Lebanon despite the new agreement. One senior official described the discussions as “stubborn negotiations,” suggesting that significant differences remain between Washington and Jerusalem over the future direction of the conflict.
The outcome may ultimately depend on how aggressively President Trump is willing to push one of America’s closest allies. While Trump has recently criticized Israeli military operations in Lebanon, accusing Israel of causing unnecessary destruction, Israeli leaders have maintained that their campaign against Hezbollah remains unfinished.
On the ground in Lebanon, many civilians remain unconvinced that peace has truly arrived.
In Beirut, displaced resident Mohammed Doghman said the agreement between Washington and Tehran had done little to ease fears among ordinary Lebanese families.
“Iran and the Americans may be finished fighting, but for us the war is still here,” he said while following developments on his phone from a temporary shelter. “We need to know if this is really the end or if the fighting will return again.”
In the southern town of Qlailieh near the coastal city of Tyre, some residents cautiously returned to inspect homes destroyed during months of bombardment. Entire neighborhoods have been reduced to rubble, leaving many unsure whether rebuilding efforts can begin while military operations continue.
Residents described a sense of exhaustion after years of recurring conflict. Many expressed frustration that diplomatic breakthroughs between major powers have not yet translated into security for communities living on the front lines.
The emerging dispute over Lebanon is creating one of the most significant strains in U.S.-Israeli relations in decades. For years, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump enjoyed an exceptionally close political partnership that reshaped U.S. policy toward the region and ultimately led to their joint military campaign against Iran.
Now, however, the Lebanon issue appears to be exposing deep divisions. Across Israel’s political spectrum, reactions to the U.S.-Iran agreement have been mixed, with critics warning that the deal could limit Israel’s military freedom of action while strengthening Tehran’s position.
When Trump launched military operations against Iran nearly four months ago, he pledged to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities, curb its regional influence, weaken its support for allied militant groups, and force significant concessions from Tehran. Although the new agreement halts active hostilities and reopens critical trade routes, many of those original objectives remain unresolved.
U.S. officials argue that the upcoming negotiations provide an opportunity to secure stronger commitments from Iran regarding its nuclear program and regional activities. They also emphasize that Washington retains leverage, including the possibility of renewed military action if diplomatic talks fail.
Critics, however, contend that Iran emerged from the conflict in a stronger position than expected. They point to Tehran’s ability to withstand months of military pressure, maintain influence over key regional developments, and secure the lifting of major economic restrictions as evidence that the balance of power may have shifted.
For now, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz has provided a much-needed boost to global markets and raised hopes that a wider regional war may be avoided.
Yet continued violence in Lebanon serves as a reminder that while a major chapter of the conflict may be ending, the path to lasting peace across the Middle East remains uncertain.
Source Reuters
Original article
Comments