Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) announced Saturday that Tehran will maintain complete control and monitoring of all traffic through the Strait of Hormuz until the end of hostilities between Iran and the United States-Israeli coalition, rejecting the continuation of the American naval blockade as a violation of the ceasefire agreement. The statement reflects escalating tensions over one of the world’s most critical shipping routes, with Iran conditioning limited commercial access on the removal of U.S. military sanctions enforcement measures.
The SNSC’s position marks a significant complication in ceasefire negotiations, as the United States maintains its naval blockade despite accepting a two-week ceasefire brokered by Pakistan. Iran’s conditional reopening of the Strait on Friday applies exclusively to commercial shipping, with all military vessels and vessels linked to “adversarial countries” remaining banned until a permanent peace agreement is achieved.
Iran’s Conditions for Strait Access and Traffic Control
The SNSC stated that Iran will enforce complete oversight of the Strait of Hormuz through multiple control mechanisms. These mechanisms include obtaining full data on all transiting vessels, issuing transit permits according to wartime regulations, collecting fees for security, safety, and environmental protection services, and mandating specific navigation routes for all commercial traffic.
The security council warned that “should the enemy attempt to disrupt shipping or impose measures such as a naval blockade, the Islamic Republic of Iran will consider that a violation of the ceasefire and will prevent the conditional and limited opening of the Strait of Hormuz.” This explicit warning targets the continued American naval presence and interdiction operations, which Iran views as incompatible with ceasefire terms.
Iran’s control framework reflects strategic calculations regarding the waterway’s importance. Most U.S. military logistics in the Persian Gulf transit through the Strait of Hormuz, making Iranian control of passage a significant leverage point in negotiations. The SNSC characterized such control as essential to Iran’s national security and regional stability.
Conditional Reopening and Commercial Access Restrictions
Iran conditionally reopened the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping on Friday following U.S. and Israeli acceptance of ceasefire terms, including a halt to Israeli military operations against Lebanon. This conditional reopening represented a significant concession, as Iran had effectively closed the waterway to shipping linked to both the U.S. and Israeli regimes and their regional allies since the war’s outbreak in late February.
However, the reopening applies exclusively to commercial vessels operating under specified conditions. Military vessels remain barred entirely. Commercial ships linked to nations designated as “adversarial” by Tehran continue to face restrictions until permanent peace is achieved and the war is “definitively ended,” according to the SNSC statement.
The restrictions demonstrate Iran’s strategy of using the Strait’s control as a negotiating tool. By limiting access to specified vessels while maintaining ban authority over military and allied commercial shipping, Iran preserves leverage while appearing to accommodate international commerce concerns.
U.S. Naval Blockade Remains Point of Contention
A critical point of disagreement between Tehran and Washington centers on the continuation of the American naval blockade. Despite Iran’s conditional reopening of the Strait on Friday, U.S. President Trump announced Saturday that the American naval blockade will remain in place, directly contradicting Iran’s ceasefire expectations.
In response to the blockade’s continuation, Iran’s military reasserted Saturday that Tehran has maintained control of the Strait of Hormuz due to Washington’s naval blockade and what Iranian officials characterize as acts of “piracy.” This language reflects Iranian perception that U.S. interdiction operations constitute illegitimate interference with legitimate maritime commerce.
The SNSC emphasized that it “views a continued U.S. naval blockade as a violation of the ceasefire and will not allow conditional and restricted passage through the Strait of Hormuz if the blockade remains in place.” This hardline position suggests Iran may move toward complete closure of the waterway if Washington maintains military interdiction measures, escalating regional tensions and threatening global energy supplies.
Failed Negotiations and Diverging Demands
The dispute over Hormuz control reflects broader disagreements that have stalled ceasefire negotiations. Initial talks in Islamabad on April 11-12 between Iranian and U.S. delegations failed to produce agreement, with Tehran blaming Washington for introducing “new and excessive demands” and shifting its negotiating position.
Prior to the Islamabad talks, the United States formally accepted Iran’s 10-point proposal as the framework for negotiations. However, U.S. negotiators allegedly abandoned this agreed framework during discussions, presenting additional demands that Iranian officials characterize as unreasonable and designed to prolong discussions indefinitely.
A Pakistani military delegation led by Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir traveled to Tehran earlier in the week with new U.S. proposals for a peace accord. The SNSC noted that Iran had yet to formally respond to these new proposals, suggesting continued deliberation regarding Washington’s revised positions.
Iranian Grievances and Ceasefire Context
According to the SNSC statement, Iran began receiving ceasefire requests beginning on the tenth day of the conflict, following significant setbacks experienced by U.S. and Israeli military forces. Iran attributes these reversals to “the historic and unparalleled resistance” of the Iranian people and armed forces, suggesting that military pressure rather than diplomatic exhaustion drove initial ceasefire discussions.
Iran formally agreed to negotiations on the 40th day of the war, specifically after the U.S. president formally accepted Iran’s 10-point plan as the basis for talks. This framing emphasizes that Iran made a significant concession by entering negotiations only after demonstrating military capability and achieving favorable battlefield conditions.
The Iranian delegation operated during Islamabad talks under “deep mistrust” toward the United States, the SNSC statement revealed, suggesting fundamental doubts regarding American commitment to genuine resolution. This skepticism appears justified by subsequent U.S. introduction of new demands after previously accepting Iran’s framework proposal.
War Origins and Escalation Context
The conflict between Iran and the U.S.-Israeli coalition began in late February 2026, when Washington and the Israeli regime initiated what the SNSC described as a “large-scale war” against Iran. The statement noted that the initial offensive included the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei and several high-ranking military commanders, representing an unprecedented escalation.
In response to this assault, Iranian Armed Forces conducted 100 waves of sustained missile and drone operations against U.S. and Israeli military targets over more than 40 days. This sustained counteroffensive demonstrated Iran’s military capability and willingness to sustain protracted conflict, contributing to U.S. and Israeli calculations regarding ceasefire necessity.
The two-week ceasefire negotiated through Pakistan and accepted on the 40th day of war represented both sides’ recognition that continued escalation would prove mutually destructive, though fundamental disagreements over terms and conditions persist.
Ceasefire Timeline and Expiration
The ceasefire is scheduled to expire on Wednesday, creating urgency in ongoing negotiations. This 14-day window provides limited time for resolving the Hormuz control dispute and other contested issues, with failure to reach agreement before expiration potentially triggering renewed hostilities.
The approaching deadline may intensify diplomatic efforts or harden negotiating positions, as both sides prepare for potential return to military confrontation. Iran’s firm stance on Hormuz control and rejection of continued naval blockades suggests Tehran is willing to risk ceasefire collapse rather than accept what it views as illegitimate U.S. military interference.
Conclusion:
Iran’s assertion of control over the Strait of Hormuz and rejection of continued U.S. naval blockade represents a critical test of ceasefire sustainability. The waterway’s strategic importance to global energy supplies and commerce makes Iranian-American disagreement over shipping access a matter of international concern extending far beyond bilateral dispute resolution. With the ceasefire expiring Wednesday and fundamental positions on blockade legitimacy remaining irreconcilable, the risk of renewed escalation threatens not only regional stability but global economic security dependent on unimpeded Persian Gulf shipping.
