'Better than nukes'? Iran digs in on Hormuz as US deal nears end

Iran is doubling down on control of the Strait of Hormuz, with some in Tehran now arguing the strategic leverage it provides is more valuable than a nuclear weapon.\n\nTehran’s drive to turn that control into lasting economic and political leverage—through shipping routes, mine clearance and potentially revenues from passing vessels—is emerging as a major obstacle to extending its fragile memorandum with the United States, which expires Sunday.\n\nWashington, meanwhile, increasingly claims it has broken Iran’s control of Hormuz.\n\nThe June 18 memorandum is formally due to expire on August 16. President Donald Trump pronounced it over after Iran attacked three ships in the Strait of Hormuz, ordering more strikes and the resumption of the US maritime blockade.\n\nNeither side, however, has formally abandoned diplomacy. If no extension is announced before Sunday, the current state of neither war nor peace could continue. An explicit declaration that the arrangement has ended could increase the risk of renewed attacks.\n\n**‘More valuable than a nuke’**\n\nPressure against concessions over the strait is also growing inside Tehran.\n\nParliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission this week unanimously approved the broad outlines of legislation that would tighten Iran’s control over Hormuz.\n\nThe bill includes provisions for inspecting vessels in Iranian territorial waters, banning the passage of assets, equipment and vessels belonging to the United States, Israel and other countries Tehran deems hostile, and charging ships for maritime services.\n\nIf enacted, the legislation could constrain Tehran’s room for compromise, much as legislation passed during Hassan Rouhani’s presidency required his government to increase uranium enrichment and suspend implementation of the Additional Protocol unless banking and oil sanctions were lifted.\n\nAlireza Salimi, a member of parliament’s presiding board, told the ISNA news agency Thursday that “the Strait of Hormuz is currently more valuable to Iran than an atomic bomb,” describing it as leverage for lifting sanctions and securing compensation for wartime losses.\n\n**Demands put talks in doubt**\n\nThe tougher approach was also reflected in demands laid out shortly before his departure by Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, the former secretary of the Supreme National Security Council.\n\nZolghadr said reopening the strait would require an end to attacks on Iran and its allies, the lifting of the blockade, the withdrawal of US forces from around Iran, sanctions relief, the release of frozen Iranian assets and compensation for damage caused by the wars.\n\nIt remains unclear whether those demands represented his personal position or that of the SNSC, and whether his successor, Mohsen Rezaei, will pursue the same approach.\n\nRezaei’s appointment this week, along with other changes at the top of Iran’s security establishment, has been welcomed by hardline opponents of the government’s approach to negotiations.\n\nFormer diplomat Kourosh Ahmadi wrote in the Shargh newspaper that if Tehran insisted on the conditions outlined by Zolghadr, “it is highly unlikely that there will be any serious negotiations between Tehran and Washington at all.”\n\n**Both sides claim control**\n\nThe dispute is unfolding as Tehran and Washington offer directly competing accounts of who actually controls Hormuz.\n\nTrump said Wednesday that the United States had complete control of the waterway and that the maritime blockade had deprived Iran of the ability to act.\n\nThe spokesman for Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, the country’s wartime command center, rejected that assertion Thursday, saying the strait remained under Iranian control and that no vessel could pass safely without authorization from Iran’s armed forces.\n\nShipping-monitoring data show traffic remains a fraction of pre-war levels. Around 10 to 12 vessels have been crossing the strait daily in recent days, compared with roughly 130 to 140 before the war, with most currently using a route designated by Iran.\n\nTehran has also stressed that an agreement with Oman over shipping routes would not by itself be sufficient to reopen the strait.\n\nAli Gholhaki, a political activist close to parliament speaker and senior Islamabad negotiator Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, said Iranian decision-makers currently had no intention of reopening the waterway and had blocked an agreement with Oman because of what they viewed as Muscat’s alignment with Washington.\n\n**Tehran and Muscat at odds**\n\nThe disagreement with Oman offers perhaps the clearest illustration of what Tehran now wants from its control of Hormuz.\n\nIran has pushed for control over shipping routes and mine clearance and for mandatory payments from vessels using the waterway. Oman has instead favored a joint fund supported by voluntary contributions from governments and companies benefiting from shipping.\n\nFew in Tehran expect Muscat to accept Iran’s terms. Ahad Azadikhah, a lawmaker aligned with Ghalibaf, recently told Khabar Online that if Oman did so, the Islamic Republic would have achieved “the victory of all victories.”\n\nThe dispute means Hormuz is increasingly intertwined with the fate of the wider Tehran-Washington dialogue. As Iran seeks to turn control of the strait into leverage over sanctions, compensation and any broader settlement, Washington may increasingly see that same leverage as something that must be neutralized before a deal can be reached.\n\nThe dispute centers on plans for a three-country verification mechanism being discussed as Iranian, Omani and Pakistani technical committees work on the operational details of a temporary navigation arrangement.\n\nHardline lawmakers argue that the government cannot implement the proposed arrangement without parliamentary debate and a formal vote, raising a broader dispute over constitutional authority and military jurisdiction.\n\nTheir opposition is focused particularly on third-party verification. Hardliners argue that sharing vessel-tracking responsibilities with Pakistani or Omani personnel, even within a joint cell, would undermine the IRGC Navy’s authority over screening in the Persian Gulf.\n\nCommentators aligned with this view have also warned that external verification channels could be exploited by Western intelligence, potentially giving NATO or US naval forces access to information about Iranian coastal movements under the guise of commercial monitoring.\n\n**Regional shield or security risk?**\n\nReformist outlets Shargh and Etemad have argued that involving Pakistan and Oman would instead provide Tehran with a diplomatic shield by reducing pressure for direct US or NATO naval escorts inside the strait’s traffic lanes.\n\nWriting in Shargh, Ahmad Zeidabadi warned that blocking regional verification “does not defend our sovereignty; it locks our economy into a suffocating siege,” adding that a functioning Muscat-Islamabad verification mechanism offered Iran a way to avert deeper economic damage.\n\nForeign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei, meanwhile, reaffirmed that any US or NATO military escorts within the strait’s traffic lanes remained prohibited under the draft terms, even as third-party verification continued to be considered in Muscat, according to IRNA.\n\n**Parliament pushes tougher terms**\n\nThe dispute comes as lawmakers are also considering legislation that could further constrain Tehran’s room for compromise over Hormuz.\n\nIranian media reported that parliament held a closed-door session over the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission’s draft bill restricting the movement of vessels linked to countries Tehran considers hostile.\n\nHardline lawmakers have pushed for a mandatory transit charge of 5% to 7% on non-exempt commercial bulk cargo to fund coastal defense and infrastructure repairs, alongside tighter inspection requirements.\n\nPro-Pezeshkian lawmakers and National Security Committee spokesma