Tehran is warning that it may shift to a “fully offensive” military strategy following the expiration of the 60-day period stipulated in the June agreement with Washington. The United States has refused to automatically extend the arrangements, while Iran is linking the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to the fulfillment of a number of conditions by Washington. The escalation is creating new risks for global energy markets and increasing the likelihood of further regional conflict.

The 60-day period stipulated in the interim agreement reached between Iran and the United States in June has expired without a final deal. The negotiations have primarily stalled over disagreements regarding Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions, the US blockade, and the status of the Strait of Hormuz.

Against this backdrop, Washington is not prepared to automatically extend the existing arrangements. Tehran, for its part, is increasingly linking further diplomatic engagement to the implementation of the conditions outlined in the June agreement.

One of the most alarming signals came from a senior Iranian official, who said that Iran intends to shift from a predominantly defensive posture to a “fully offensive” strategy. According to Reuters, the decision is linked to the lack of progress in negotiations with the United States on a permanent cessation of the conflict.

The statement from Tehran therefore carries not only military but also diplomatic significance. Iran is effectively seeking to raise the cost of continued US pressure while demonstrating its readiness to use available military and regional instruments of influence.

At the same time, a shift toward a more offensive strategy does not necessarily mean that Iran is preparing to launch an immediate large-scale military operation. At this stage, it can also be viewed as an instrument of pressure ahead of a possible resumption of negotiations.

However, the problem is that the room for diplomatic maneuver is becoming increasingly limited. The two sides are publicly presenting opposing demands and accusing each other of violating the initial arrangements.

On August 18, Iran said that the Strait of Hormuz would remain closed until the United States fulfills the conditions of the interim agreement. The statement was made by Iranian negotiator Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf.

Tehran’s demands reportedly include:

• ending the blockade and lifting restrictions on Iranian ports;
• lifting oil sanctions;
• unfreezing Iranian assets;
• ending US military threats and operations against Iran.

Thus, for Tehran, the issue of the Strait of Hormuz has become part of a broader set of political and economic demands directed at Washington.

Iran has also previously stated that an agreement with Oman on organizing maritime traffic through the strait is nearing completion. However, Tehran stresses that an agreement with Muscat does not automatically mean that the strait will be reopened. According to Iran, the United States must first fulfill other conditions.

It should be noted that the Strait of Hormuz is of critical importance to global energy markets. Before the current crisis, enormous volumes of oil and petroleum products passed through the strategic waterway. Maritime traffic through the strait has now fallen sharply. Oil shipments through the strait have reportedly declined from approximately 18 million barrels per day to around 2 million barrels per day. Overall oil exports from the Middle East have also fallen significantly below pre-war levels.

This makes the Strait of Hormuz not merely a military or geopolitical issue, but one of the most important factors affecting the global economy. Any new attack on tankers or further restrictions on maritime traffic could drive up oil prices, increase transportation costs, and intensify inflationary pressures on countries dependent on imported energy.

The main problem at this stage is that both sides believe the other must make the first move. Iran is demanding that the United States fulfill the terms of the interim agreement, including lifting the blockade, unfreezing Iranian assets, and ending military threats. Washington, by contrast, accuses Tehran of failing to meet its obligations regarding the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and continues to exert economic and military pressure on Iran.

On August 9, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that direct negotiations with the United States were impossible as long as Washington continued to violate the terms of the interim agreement. At the same time, communication between the two sides continues through intermediaries. This means that the diplomatic channel has not completely disappeared, but full-fledged negotiations are effectively frozen.

The current situation has several important implications:

1. The risk of further military escalation is increasing. Iran’s shift toward a “fully offensive” strategy suggests that Tehran may view military action as a means of forcing Washington to make concessions. At the same time, any new attack against US, Israeli, or affiliated targets could trigger a retaliatory response from the United States.
2. The Strait of Hormuz is becoming a lever not only for Iran but for the entire regional confrontation. The longer restrictions on maritime traffic remain in place, the greater the economic cost of the conflict for global markets.
3. Oman’s role is becoming increasingly important. Muscat is seeking to preserve its role as a mediator and is involved in discussions over a mechanism for regulating maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. However, pressure from both the United States and Iran limits Oman’s room for independent maneuver.
4. The nuclear issue remains the central obstacle. The original 60-day agreement envisaged further negotiations, including on Iran’s nuclear program. The United States is seeking restrictions on Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, while Tehran is demanding economic and political guarantees.

The expiration of the 60-day period has become a major turning point in the confrontation between Iran and the United States. Instead of moving toward a long-term political agreement, the two sides have entered a new period of uncertainty: Tehran is intensifying its military rhetoric and using the Strait of Hormuz as its main lever of pressure, while Washington is refusing to accept the previous terms and continues to seek concessions from Iran.

The main risk is that the Strait of Hormuz is gradually transforming from one element of the conflict into its central pressure point. If diplomacy is not restored, any new confrontation over maritime traffic could have consequences far beyond Iran and the Persian Gulf — from higher global oil prices to a new wave of geopolitical tensions.

#USA

#NEWS

#IRAN

18.08.2026 11:02