After nearly 100 days of conflict, the US and Iran agreed on an interim deal. The framework includes removing the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz (by Iran and the US) within 30 days of agreement signing in Switzerland (19 June), and 60 days to pave the way for detailed negotiations toward the final peace agreement.
On the surface, the proposed deal ticks the right boxes
- Restoration of the Strait of Hormuz: The agreement mandates the reopening of the Strait, effectively restoring 20% of global oil, 20% of LNG and 30% of LPG flow. This is expected to stabilise energy prices, which have remained volatile since the start of “Operation Epic Fury” in February.
- Termination of naval blockade: The US has authorised the lifting of maritime blockades on Iranian ports. This allows for the immediate resumption of commercial cargo flows, reducing regional insurance premiums and shipping delays.
- The $24 billion liquidity injection: The release of frozen Iranian assets, coupled with a 60-day moratorium on new US sanctions, provides a critical “financial carrot” to ensure compliance during the negotiation window.
“Wait-and-see” approach to continue for shipping
Drewry does not expect a quick reaction from shipping companies. It is indeed progress, but still shrouded in uncertainty, with the on-ground situation likely different from what we see.
QatarEnergy’s LNGC Disha exited the Strait of Hormuz, the first since the preliminary deal was announced, but no other vessel movementhas been reported so far. Vessels continue to keep their transponders off, but the situation could change from 19 June.
The tough questions still remain unanswered
- The 60-Day “peace window”: Drewry views this not as a final resolution but as a “strategic pause’. The underlying threats to regional security and the unresolved dockets remain significant “tail risks” for long-term infrastructure investment.
- The nuclear card: No conclusion on Iran’s enriched nuclear stockpile and its future nuclear programmes. The hardest point of contention.
- Regional non-compliance: Statements from the Israeli National Security Minister suggesting that the agreement “does not bind” Israel indicate that risks in the Eastern Mediterranean and Lebanon may persist despite the ceasefire.
- Mediated trust: World peace currently relies on third-party facilitators (Pakistan, Qatar, Egypt, Turkey) rather than direct diplomatic channels between Washington and Tehran, adding a layer of geopolitical complexity to trade stability.
The agreement reduces immediate disruption risk, but does not eliminate geopolitical uncertainty. War risk premiums will ease but remain high; freight markets will react the same, but volatility will remain high. The next 60 days (from agreement signing) will determine if the agreement evolves into a durable framework or simply resets the clock for another phase of disruptions in the deeply troubled energy and shipping markets.
For shipping, the most immediate change is likely to be the return of insurers to the market. A 60-day peace window is long enough to restore some confidence in coverage availability, even if underwriters continue to price voyages through the region with a clear war-risk premium. The reopening of Hormuz and easing of port blockades should therefore improve voyage visibility and reduce immediate disruption risk but not remove the cost of operating in a conflict-sensitive corridor.
Recent attacks on ships will also force shipping companies to reassess P&I exposure in war zones, with greater scrutiny of crew safety, cargo protection, routing decisions and fixture terms. In practical terms, the deal supports a cautious reopening of trade flows rather than a full reset. Insurance companies will undoubtedly return, but only on risk-adjusted terms until the 60-day process delivers a more durable security framework.
Source: Drewry
