Iranian state media said the Strait of Hormuz was closed over alleged U.S. and Israeli violations, but CENTCOM reported increased commercial traffic through the waterway as diplomats prepared for delayed talks in Switzerland.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Iranian state media reported Saturday that Iran had closed the Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic, citing alleged violations of its interim agreement with the United States and continued fighting in southern Lebanon, while U.S. military officials said commercial vessels were still moving through the waterway.
The conflicting accounts came days after Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding on June 17 that called for the strait to remain open without tolls for 60 days while broader negotiations proceed.
Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters issued a statement to Iranian state media saying the closure was a response to “the explicit breach of the first clause of the post-war memorandum of understanding by the United States” and Israel’s “ongoing violations of the ceasefire in southern Lebanon.”
U.S. Central Command disputed the practical effect of Iran’s announcement, saying ship traffic had increased June 20.
“Commercial ship traffic in the Strait of Hormuz increased June 20,” CENTCOM wrote in a post on X.
“Safe passage through the international waterway remained intact today as 55 merchant ships transited, moving large amounts of cargo and more than 17 million barrels of oil to global markets,” CENTCOM wrote.
Marine Vessel Traffic data also indicated that ships were still passing through the strait Saturday despite Iran’s claim that the waterway had been closed.
Vice President JD Vance said Saturday morning on Fox News that he had not seen evidence the strait was closed and still believed the agreement between Washington and Tehran could hold.
The Strait of Hormuz, located off Iran’s southwestern coast, is one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints. Any prolonged disruption threatens global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments.
The dispute over the waterway came as Iran also sought to link the agreement’s future to developments in Lebanon.
Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leiter said Saturday that Hezbollah, not Israel, had violated the ceasefire.
“Israel is honoring the ceasefire while defending itself against terrorist attacks, as any self-respecting country would,” Leiter wrote on X.
The Israel Defense Forces also said Hezbollah had broken the ceasefire.
“Hezbollah launched 50+ projectiles toward IDF soldiers operating in southern Lebanon,” the IDF said in a post on X.
The diplomatic track was also unsettled. Talks involving the United States, Iran, Qatar and Pakistan had been expected to begin June 19 at the Bürgenstock resort overlooking Lake Lucerne in Switzerland, but the Swiss Foreign Ministry said they were postponed.
Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs later said technical-level talks would take place June 21. Representatives from the United States and Iran, along with mediators from Pakistan and Qatar, were expected to attend.
Vance said before Pakistan’s announcement that preparations were underway for him to travel to Switzerland, though timing was not final.
“I expect that I will leave sometime in the next couple of days, but you know it’s always a delicate coordination dance and the diplomatic protocols,” Vance said on “Fox and Friends Weekend.”
Vance said U.S. envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff were already in Switzerland “dealing with some of the technical elements of this negotiation.”
Iran’s state broadcaster reported separately that the country’s negotiating team was heading to Switzerland after canceling an earlier trip planned for Friday.
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Bagahei said the trip was not a sign that broader negotiations were moving forward smoothly.
“This trip is therefore about demanding that the other side fulfill its obligations,” Bagahei said.
He said negotiations toward a final agreement would begin only once Iran believes key commitments, including an end to fighting in Lebanon, are being honored.
“If any part of these understandings, any part of these commitments, is not implemented, then the memorandum of understanding as a whole will be jeopardized,” Bagahei said.
The interim agreement had initially allowed ships to resume transiting the Strait of Hormuz after the U.S.-Iran deal was signed earlier in the week.
The wider agreement has also drawn scrutiny because of conflicting messages from President Donald Trump and other administration officials about Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities.
In an interview with Axios, Trump defended the agreement and said it amounted to “unconditional surrender” by Tehran.
“Well, it really probably is unconditional surrender,” Trump said.
Trump argued that Iran’s military had been severely weakened.
“They have no military,” he said. “The entire military is gone.”
The president also suggested the conflict had changed Iran’s political structure.
“I actually think it’s regime change,” Trump said.
Trump said the agreement ensures Iran will not obtain a nuclear weapon and credited several countries, including Pakistan, with helping facilitate communication during the negotiations.
At the same time, Trump’s recent remarks on Iran’s missile capabilities marked a shift from earlier administration messaging about Operation Epic Fury.
Senior administration officials had previously described degrading Iran’s ballistic missile force as a central objective of the military campaign. In a Fox News report, Trump said Iran’s missile program was not the core issue.
“If other countries have them, it’s a little bit unfair for them not to have some. If Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and they all have some, I would say that in relative proportion, I think it’s okay,” Trump said at the G7 forum Wednesday. “Am I going to let Saudi Arabia have missiles, but (Iran) can’t have them? It doesn’t work that way.”
“Missiles aren’t the problem. They hurt a little location, but they don’t blow up the planet,” Trump said.
He added that Gulf nations would be part of discussions on nonnuclear issues.
“The Gulf nations will address the nonnuclear issues, as we’ll be talking about the ballistic missiles,” Trump said. “And we’ll talk, also, about the terrorist proxies that they have that — we don’t want that to happen.”
Those comments contrasted with earlier statements by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, War Secretary Pete Hegseth and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who had repeatedly said Iran’s missile force was a central target of the U.S. campaign.
“Iran can never have a nuclear weapon, and we will not allow Iran to hide behind the immunity of a massive short-term ballistic missile inventory, or the ability to make them or launch them,” Rubio said at a March 3 press conference. “What they are trying to do, and have been trying to do for a very long time, is build a conventional weapons capability as a shield to hide behind.”
Trump had also said at the start of the operation that Iran’s missile capabilities were a top target.
“Our objectives are clear. First, we’re destroying Iran’s missile capabilities … and their capacity to produce brand new ones,” Trump said March 2.
Hegseth later said the mission was “laser-focused” on eliminating Iran’s missiles and production facilities, while Leavitt said one of the administration’s objectives was to “destroy the regime’s deadly ballistic missiles and completely raze their missile industry to the ground.”
Rubio repeated that point March 30, saying the operation had four core objectives.
“This is about very specific objectives,” Rubio said. “The President laid them out on the first night of the operation… Here they are — you should write them down. No. 1, the destruction of their air force. No. 2, the destruction of their navy. No. 3 the severe diminishing of their missile launching capability. And number four, the destruction of their factories so they can’t make more missiles and more drones to threaten us in the future. All of this so that they can never hide behind it to acquire a nuclear weapon. That was our objective from the beginning; that remains our objective now.”
Leavitt similarly said Operation Epic Fury sought to destroy Iran’s ballistic missiles and dismantle its missile-production infrastructure while ensuring Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon.
Trump’s comments at the G7 also introduced new uncertainty around the administration’s stance on Iran’s nuclear program.
Under the framework now being negotiated, the United States and Iran agreed to spend 60 days addressing the fate of Iran’s nearly 900-pound stockpile of 60% enriched uranium and any future enrichment activity. Administration officials have said one minimum outcome could involve down-blending the material under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision, but key terms remain unresolved.
Trump suggested at the G7 that Iran’s access to nuclear power for civilian purposes may require a more flexible approach.
“It is a little hard, though, when you say that somebody wants it, other people have it, other, adjoining states have it. And you’re not letting them have it for purposes of electricity and things like that,” Trump said. “It’s always a little tough. You have to use a little common sense.”
That tone differed from earlier statements by special envoy Steve Witkoff, who said the United States could not allow Iran to retain “even 1%” enrichment capability. White House officials had also described the end of Iranian enrichment as a red line.
The White House referred back to Trump’s recent remarks on missiles when asked for additional comment.
“We are going to let the President’s comments stand,” a State Department spokesperson said.
The Pentagon could not immediately be reached for comment.
The dispute over the Strait of Hormuz, the delayed Switzerland talks and the administration’s shifting language on missiles and enrichment have left the interim agreement under pressure days after it was signed.
For now, U.S. officials say ships continue to move through the strait. Iran, however, is warning that the agreement could be jeopardized if it believes Washington or Israel is failing to meet the memorandum’s terms.
Original article
Comments