The 40-day war was not merely a military confrontation; it was also a test of the weight of geopolitical factors in the region’s security equation. One of its most significant outcomes was the consolidation of the Strait of Hormuz as Iran’s most effective strategic leverage in the post-conflict period. While Hormuz was once viewed primarily as a global energy corridor, it has now become a decisive variable in the security, economic, and diplomatic calculations of regional and extra-regional actors. As a result, any negotiations between Iran and the US will inevitably take place under the shadow of this strategic waterway.

Throughout the war, Iran preserved two principal deterrent capabilities: first, its ability to influence security and regulate maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz; second, its capability to respond to US aggression by targeting American bases and interests across the region. With the ceasefire in place, the second option has effectively been set aside unless new aggression occurs. The Hormuz lever, however, remains intact and has become even more significant because it can influence the other side’s political and economic calculations without requiring direct military confrontation.

The importance of this leverage became even clearer when Donald Trump told Axios that continued bombing of Iran could have resulted in the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, halted maritime traffic, and disrupted oil exports for months. Regardless of the political purpose behind the statement, it revealed a strategic reality: military superiority does not necessarily guarantee secure navigation through Hormuz. From this perspective, the war’s end was driven not only by military considerations but also by concerns over the economic consequences of disrupting the world's most critical energy artery.

Following the ceasefire, the US and several regional states sought to project that conditions in the Strait had returned to their pre-war status. Developments on the ground, however, suggested otherwise. The IRGC Navy warned that vessels transiting outside arrangements recognized by Iran could not be assured of safe passage. Shortly afterward, a vessel was struck in the area, and Donald Trump blamed Iran for the incident. Regardless of differing accounts over responsibility, the strategic significance of the episode lay in the fact that it once again elevated the security of the Strait of Hormuz to the highest levels of US decision-making. It also demonstrated that any disruption to maritime shipping immediately becomes a political and security issue between Tehran and Washington, while alternative transit corridors would face serious operational and security challenges if Iran's considerations are ignored.

At the same time, Marco Rubio’s unannounced visit to the region and his joint statement with the southern Persian Gulf states underscored the same reality. The central focus of those consultations was freedom of navigation, maritime security, and the uninterrupted flow of energy through the Strait of Hormuz. These diplomatic efforts indicate that, for Washington, fully restoring maritime security to its pre-war condition is not merely a security objective but an economic and geopolitical necessity with direct implications for global energy markets, international economic stability, and the security of US regional partners.

Under these circumstances, the Strait of Hormuz can serve not only as a military deterrent but also as a mechanism for guaranteeing the implementation of any future agreement. From Tehran’s perspective, restoring the waterway entirely to its pre-war status would mean surrendering Iran’s most significant strategic advantage after the conflict, something it will not accept. Conversely, the US seeks full normalization of conditions in the Strait to reduce risks to energy markets and reassure its allies.

Accordingly, any future negotiations are unlikely to be confined to the nuclear issue or sanctions relief alone. Maritime security, freedom of navigation, Persian Gulf security arrangements, and the future management of the Strait of Hormuz are also expected to become central bargaining issues. In other words, the shadow of Hormuz will extend across every other negotiating file, as the waterway now represents the intersection of four key pillars of power: security, energy, economics, and diplomacy.

For this reason, the Strait of Hormuz is likely to become, in the coming weeks and months, not only the principal point of contention but also one of the primary factors shaping any potential agreement between Iran and the US.