Concerns over the future of the Strait of Hormuz have emerged as one of the most divisive issues surrounding President Donald Trump's new agreement with Iran, with lawmakers, former officials, and energy analysts warning that Tehran could secure lasting leverage over one of the world's most critical maritime chokepoints. The memorandum of understanding, signed last week, ended nearly four months of conflict between Washington and Tehran — but critics across the political spectrum question whether it has, in practice, strengthened Iran's hand in the narrow waterway through which a substantial share of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies pass.

What Critics Are Saying

Former White House energy adviser Amos Hochstein argued that Iran's influence over the strait could prove to be one of the agreement's most consequential outcomes. Speaking on CBS's Face the Nation, Hochstein said: 'Iran controls the strait. Control means a lot of different things. But, effectively, they are planning for control with eventually a toll of some kind or a fee structure of some kind.'

He warned the issue extended well beyond navigation rights. 'If I don't like Saudi Arabia or I'm upset with Kuwait, I can say your ships are not crossing,' Hochstein said, outlining the potential for Iran to selectively block passage for vessels from specific nations.

Former Defence Secretary Mark Esper, appearing on NBC's Meet the Press, echoed those concerns. 'We cannot allow the Iranians to control the Strait of Hormuz,' Esper said. 'I think a strategic setback would be if that is indeed the case.' He added that Iran may have discovered a powerful new instrument of geopolitical leverage: 'They have discovered that they have a tool that they can use,' referring to the ability to threaten global energy flows through the strait.

The Trump Administration's Defence

US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz pushed back firmly against the criticism, asserting that negotiations were conducted from 'a position of strength' and that Iran remained economically, militarily, and diplomatically weakened. Waltz pointed to a United Nations vote in which '143 countries' condemned Iran 'for its illegal mining of the straits' and attempts to disrupt global commerce, arguing that international opinion had largely sided against Tehran's conduct in the waterway.

Congressional Warning

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham struck a more combative tone, suggesting Washington would act unilaterally if diplomacy collapsed. 'If this diplomatic effort fails, President Trump is going to take the Strait of Hormuz,' Graham said. 'The United States will control the Strait of Hormuz.' The remarks signal that congressional hawks remain unconvinced the agreement resolves the underlying strategic contest over the waterway.

Energy Market Implications

Energy analysts caution that the strait's future status may ultimately prove as consequential as the nuclear negotiations themselves. Kevin Book of ClearView Energy Partners noted that energy markets remain highly sensitive to developments in the region and warned that restoring inventories and stabilising prices could take considerable time even if diplomatic tensions ease. This comes amid already fragile global energy supply chains, where any disruption to Hormuz — through which an estimated 20% of the world's oil transits — would have immediate and far-reaching price consequences.

With the ink barely dry on the memorandum, the question of who effectively controls the Strait of Hormuz looks set to define the next phase of US-Iran relations.