In mid-June 2026, the pen on the negotiation table was already raised. Iranian Foreign Minister Amirabdollahian announced externally that Tehran and Washington had reached an agreement on a draft of a memorandum of understanding. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz also came forward to confirm that both sides had shaken hands on the text of a peace agreement. The initial phase of signing was described as being completed "in the coming days" through remote electronic means, and details would be announced afterward. However, just as the agreement text was nearing finalization, Reuters cited informed sources stating that the U.S. military shot down several Iranian unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) flying towards the Strait of Hormuz, justifying that these targets "threatened commercial shipping," and the echoes of the covert war resumed over the Strait. Almost simultaneously, Amirabdollahian announced that services related to the Strait of Hormuz would begin to incur fees, without disclosing specific standards or timelines, yet this was enough to raise the bargaining stakes for this critical global energy route, in the context of the memorandum of understanding about to be signed remotely, turning the struggle for control of the Strait into a public game where the diplomatic text and frontline pressure compete in sync.
Peace Text Finalized: The Iran-U.S. Deal Mediated by Pakistan
As UAVs were shot down over the Strait, negotiations were simultaneously advancing on the text alignment. Under Pakistan's active mediation, Iran and the U.S. reached consensus on a draft memorandum of understanding, attempting to create a "de-escalation corridor" for the long-accumulated nuclear issues and regional security antagonism. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz immediately confirmed publicly that Iran and the U.S. had reached an agreement on the peace agreement text. According to Xinhua News Agency, this statement was itself a carefully designed signal - a public endorsement from a third party was intended to convey expectations of "peace on the way" to the regional and global markets.
More crucial details came from Iranian Foreign Minister Amirabdollahian. According to Xinhua News Agency, he stated clearly that Iran and the U.S. had reached agreement on the draft memorandum of understanding, and once the final phase of negotiations was completed, it would be signed and announced immediately. The initial phase of signing would take place remotely, and he summarized the time window as "within the coming days". This arrangement for remote signing indicates that both sides have not only found a minimum consensus in content but also reached operational tacit understanding in terms of rhythm and form. In contrast, a senior U.S. government official leaked to the media that under the relevant agreement, the U.S. would obtain Iran's enriched nuclear material, but this statement has currently only appeared from a single source and has not been publicly confirmed by Iran; under the premise that the specific terms of the agreement remain opaque, the core exchange content of this "deal" remains a critical unknown factor that will determine the subsequent pattern.
Hormuz Fee Announcement: Iran Draws a New Red Line in the Strait
Just as the agreement text remained tightly sealed and difficult for the outside world to glimpse, Iran reached out to the Strait of Hormuz, this "throat". According to Xinhua News Agency, Iranian Foreign Minister Amirabdollahian announced that services related to the Strait of Hormuz would begin charging fees, yet intentionally without providing details on charging standards, implementation timelines, and applicable subjects. For global energy shipping routes long accustomed to navigating this corridor "without extra tickets," this declaration is seen as Iran's formal external claim to control over the Strait, potentially rewriting the past cost structure setting, forcing every passing tanker to recalculate risk and accounting.
This action did not occur in a vacuum. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most important oil transport channels globally. Over the years, Iran has repeatedly included "blocking Hormuz" as one option for external pressure, but now has reframed the old threat into new rules through a more institutionalized approach of "charging fees". More significantly, almost simultaneously with Iran raising the issue of fees, Reuters cited informed sources saying that the U.S. military shot down several Iranian one-way attack drones flying towards Hormuz, justifying that these drones posed a threat to commercial shipping, creating a stark contrast between the tension over the Strait and the "approaching reconciliation" at the negotiation table. By introducing the topic of charging before the agreement was signed, it effectively draws a red line in the Strait, sending a clear signal to opponents: any future understandings must not only address traditional issues like nuclear materials and sanctions but must also answer a specific question - who ultimately has the final say over Hormuz.
Drones Shot Down: U.S. Military Acts in the Name of Shipping Security
At the same time the memorandum text was confirmed, another sound emerged over the Strait of Hormuz. Reuters cited informed sources that the U.S. military shot down several Iranian one-way attack drones heading towards that area. The U.S. justification stated that these drones posed a threat to commercial shipping and had to be intercepted before entering the shipping lanes. The U.S. Navy was thus portrayed as a "gatekeeper for security" in the Strait, maintaining its patrol presence in tense and crowded waterways. In contrast, up until now, Iran has not issued a detailed and widely cited official explanation regarding this wave of drone shoot-downs. The flight trajectories, mission nature, and engagement details of the events remain unresolved and can only be categorized within the reoccurring "drone/missile and vessel" safety incidents surrounding Hormuz.
The texts on the negotiation table have been aligned, but the firepower over the Strait has not cooled in synchronization. This parallel situation itself is a signal: even if an agreement has been reached "on paper," the truly unavoidable challenges remain in the boundaries of implementation - who has the authority to determine that a drone poses a threat to shipping, who can delineate a security radius over Hormuz in the air and on the water, and how to distinguish between defense and provocation in future intercept operations. The incident of drones being shot down brings these originally hidden issues behind the terms to the forefront, suggesting to the outside world that even if the memorandum of understanding is successfully signed, frictions regarding maritime safety rules and behavioral boundaries may persist long in Hormuz.
Parallel Negotiations and Battlefield: Power Testing Before Agreement Implementation
Just as Iranian Foreign Minister Amirabdollahian announced publicly that Iran and the U.S. had reached an agreement on the draft memorandum of understanding, and that the initial phase of signing was expected to be completed "in the coming days" via remote means, the U.S. military shot down several Iranian one-way attack drones heading towards the Strait of Hormuz, with the timing window almost overlapping. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz confirmed publicly that both sides had reached agreement on the text of the peace agreement, creating a stark contrast between the diplomatic "near handshake" and the demonstration of firepower over the Strait, showing that Iran and the U.S. did not complete a neat transition between "peace" and "conflict," but instead continued to touch each other's bottom lines while negotiating under tension. The announcement of Hormuz-related services beginning to charge fees reinforces Iran's sense of presence and claim over this vital route, while simultaneously countering the U.S. military's high-intensity intervention purportedly aimed at "protecting commercial shipping" - one through a fee system adopting the Strait into its own order and the other shaping its own safety rules through military action, essentially both are preparations surrounding control and discourse power.
Deeper tensions are buried in the not-yet-public details of the terms. A senior U.S. government official claimed that under the relevant agreement, the U.S. would obtain Iran's enriched nuclear material, but this statement has so far appeared from only one source and has not been publicly confirmed by Iran. Existing materials also only indicate that there are still divergences on the handling and sequencing of nuclear issues in the negotiations. Iran has maintained a tough posture on nuclear issues for a long time, while the U.S. has released expectations about nuclear material disposal; the gap between the two suggests that even if the memorandum of understanding is smoothly signed, new frictions may arise during the executive phase surrounding the interpretation of terms. Before the formal signing, the security arrangements for the Strait of Hormuz, the priority of nuclear issues on the agenda, and how regional allies will be integrated into the new framework are likely to be repeatedly "rehearsed" through localized frictions such as drone interceptions and fee disputes, signaling that the true test of the agreement lies not in the moment of signing, but in every subsequent clash of specifics and interpretations.
From the Strait to Nuclear Materials: Three Key Clues to Watch Next
Next, there are at least three key clues that will determine the trajectory of this memorandum of understanding. First is the timing and the text itself: whether the remote electronic signing referred to by the Iranian Foreign Minister occurs as scheduled in "the coming days," and after the public version is released, how the nuclear issues, regional security, and Hormuz topics are prioritized and weighed, especially how to respond to the single-source claim by that U.S. senior official regarding the acquisition of enriched nuclear material from Iran, whether it is incorporated, ambiguously treated, or deliberately avoided. Second is the details and enforcement intensity of the fees: currently, charging for Hormuz is still at the principle announcement stage; what truly needs observation is whether countries along the route and major shipping and energy enterprises choose to cooperate, delay, or divert in the absence of complete guidelines, as well as whether Iran will strengthen its control when faced with resistance through additional fees and inspection delays. Third is whether frictions become normalized: the incident of the U.S. military shooting down Iranian drones has already set a precedent, and in any sensitive node during the implementation of the agreement, if similar small-scale frictions such as drone and patrol ship standoffs reoccur around Hormuz, they may reverse the tone and terms explanation at the negotiation table. The disposal of nuclear materials, security arrangements of the Strait, and whether regional lines of engagement will shrink will intertwine into a causal chain among these clues, and the Strait of Hormuz will serve as the most direct window for observing whether Iran-U.S. relations can move from paper reconciliation to real interaction.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
