Tensions between the United States and Iran over the Straits of Hormuz, alongside the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, have overshadowed the original drivers of the recent war: Iran’s ballistic missile program and nuclear ambitions. While some once hoped the conflict might weaken Iran’s leadership, officials in Washington and Jerusalem understood that military action alone would not bring about regime change.

Current negotiations have prioritized reopening the Straits of Hormuz to ease a worsening global economic crisis triggered by the waterway’s closure. A tentative arrangement linked Iran reopening the strait to a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. However, disagreements over whether Israel could continue striking Hezbollah fighters in southern Lebanon, along with statements from President Donald Trump about maintaining pressure on Iran, have complicated the deal.

Iranian leaders, despite sustaining heavy economic and military damage during the war, appear to believe they retain leverage. They have signaled that reopening the strait could remain conditional and reversible, tying it to broader demands including limits on Israeli military actions. This raises concerns in Washington and Jerusalem that Iran could continue using the waterway as a bargaining tool.

For the United States and Israel, the central unresolved issues remain Iran’s ballistic missiles and nuclear program. If concessions over Lebanon and Hormuz are not carefully structured, Iran could preserve leverage while avoiding meaningful compromises on these core security concerns, undermining the original objectives of the conflict.