US and coalition forces are preparing to clear mines from the Strait of Hormuz, with a proposed military hotline between Washington and Tehran intended to prevent clashes during the operation, the New York Post reported on Friday, citing people familiar with the plans.
The preliminary memorandum of understanding between Tehran and Washington to end the 70-day conflict and reopen the Strait of Hormuz has reshaped the regional balance, with consequences extending far beyond the battlefield.
The agreement has created clear political and economic winners—and at least one conspicuous loser—as governments reassess their security, energy and diplomatic priorities.
The principal beneficiaries are the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, along with China and Pakistan, all of which have a strong interest in restoring regional stability and safeguarding trade. Israel, by contrast, emerges as the most politically isolated actor, increasingly at odds with Washington's approach and the broader diplomatic direction of the region.
For much of the world, the central issue is not the ideological rivalry between Iran and Israel but the security of maritime trade.
The Strait of Hormuz is a critical artery for global energy flows and for imports of food and consumer goods into the Persian Gulf. Its closure disrupted oil and gas exports, slowed economic activity and heightened inflation across the region.
According to the moderate outlet Fararu, a former British ambassador to Iran argued that many Persian Gulf states believe the agreement should have been reached much earlier given the scale of the economic damage caused by the crisis.
The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states did not respond uniformly to the conflict. Qatar and Oman opposed the escalation from the outset, while Saudi Arabia and the UAE adopted more cautious positions.
Qatar played a particularly important mediating role, helping facilitate communication between Tehran and Washington. Oman, meanwhile, faced Iranian pressure to endorse the idea of tolling the Strait of Hormuz—a proposal rejected by regional states and the wider international community, which regard the waterway as an international passage rather than a commercial asset.
Despite those differences, the agreement has narrowed intra-GCC divisions. It has also deepened doubts about Washington's long-term reliability as a security guarantor, even as Iran's Arab neighbours remain dependent on American military infrastructure.
China appears to have emerged as one of the agreement's biggest beneficiaries. Throughout the crisis, Beijing's overriding concern was global economic stability.
The reopening of the Strait lowers energy import costs, supports Chinese economic recovery and reinforces Beijing's preferred image as a power that benefits from stability without becoming directly involved in regional conflicts.
Pakistan likewise stands to gain. Having played a central mediating role, Islamabad strengthens its diplomatic standing while reducing the risk that instability on its western border could spill over into its own security and economy.
For Russia, the picture is more mixed. The closure of the Strait pushed global oil prices higher, boosting Moscow's revenues. The agreement is reversing that trend, reducing those gains. On the other hand, a more stable Middle East makes it less likely that Arab states will deepen military cooperation with Ukraine, particularly in air defense—an outcome Moscow is likely to welcome.
Israel appears to be the agreement's principal political loser. Donald Trump had hoped to expand the Abraham Accords, but Arab governments are now focused primarily on securing a durable arrangement that contains Iran's nuclear program and prevents another regional war.
Israel's current government, which appears intent on undermining the agreement, has further reduced regional enthusiasm for normalization, leaving it increasingly isolated from the emerging diplomatic consensus.
The agreement has also revived debate inside Iran over whether any future nuclear arrangement can endure on its own.
Former ambassador Hossein Mousavian argues that no nuclear deal can survive unless it also addresses the deeper Iran-Israel confrontation.
In remarks quoted by Rouydad24, he described the current moment as a "golden opportunity" to transform Tehran-Washington relations, but warned that any agreement focused solely on the nuclear file would remain fragile unless embedded within a broader regional security framework.
His assessment reflects a broader recognition emerging from the conflict: the ceasefire and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz may have created new diplomatic opportunities, but whether they endure will depend on addressing the deeper regional rivalries that have repeatedly undermined previous agreements.
A House Democrat said on Friday that US retaliatory strikes against Iran suggest the conflict is far from over, warning that he does not believe “this war is anywhere near over,” according to CBS News.
Representative Suhas Subramanyam of Virginia also questioned the durability of the memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran, arguing that Iran is difficult to deal with and that US foreign policy has contributed to the breakdown of diplomatic frameworks.
Iranian MP Mohammad Manan Raisi said that those without access to the discussions in the Supreme National Security Council are not aware of its contents, adding that he has information that a senior figure reportedly said they would step aside and leave if an agreement with US was not signed.
"I have information that a senior figure said if the agreement is not signed, I will no longer be here, I will step aside and leave. Our military commanders were caught at a crossroads. If they had opposed the other side, the country would have fallen into a political vacuum and there could have been renewed division on the streets so they chose the lesser of two bad options," he said.
Hardline influencer Ehsan Hosseini said on Friday that those calling for negotiation after US military action are effectively addressing a non-existent party.
"The response to America's military aggression is not a missile but negotiation, do not play in the field of Netanyahu, Trump, and the stability-seekers who are seeking to disrupt the agreement," he posted on X. "If we analyze it this way, the consensus-makers are seeking an agreement that has no second party!"
The naval branch of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said it responded to what it called a US “violation of commitments” by targeting “US Army deployment sites in the region.”
In a statement, it said the response followed a US airstrike on Iran, which it described as a breach of a ceasefire and international arrangements related to the Strait of Hormuz.
“According to Article 5 of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, arrangements for controlling transit and movement in the Strait of Hormuz are under the responsibility of the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, the United States, by inciting various parties, sought to violate this commitment, and an appropriate response was given, and it will be the same going forward. In the event of a repeated act of aggression, our response will be broader than this," the statement added.