US-Iran preliminary peace deal reopens Strait of Hormuz and lifts naval blockade, but verification gaps and Israeli defiance leave energy market and sanctions certainty unresolved
A preliminary memorandum of understanding signed between the United States and Iran has resulted in the US lifting its naval blockade on Iranian ports and committing to reopen the Strait of Hormuz — the critical waterway through which a significant portion of the world's oil, gas, and fertiliser passes to global markets. The agreement creates a 60-day window, extendable by mutual agreement, for the two sides to negotiate a broader settlement. Despite the immediate de-escalation, the deal faces significant structural fragility. Vice President JD Vance delayed a planned trip to Switzerland to negotiate final terms, with the postponement raising questions about the agreement's durability. Iran has made clear that the deal requires Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon, a condition Israel has publicly rejected, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stating Israeli troops will remain as long as Israel's security requires. For energy and commodities markets, the reopening of Hormuz is immediately significant — the strait is a chokepoint for roughly a fifth of global oil trade. However, the London Market Association (LMA) has separately noted that further clarification will be needed on the practical steps required to resume shipping, including the extent to which the US, UK, and EU will be lifting sanctions and designations with respect to Iran. This sanctions unwinding question has direct implications for marine insurers, commodities traders, and energy companies seeking to re-engage with Iranian counterparties.
Why this matters
From an energy law perspective, the preliminary deal creates a period of deep legal uncertainty rather than immediate clarity. Sanctions designations maintained by the UK and EU against Iranian entities do not automatically lift because the US agrees a memorandum of understanding — each regime requires its own formal unwinding process, and until that happens, UK and EU-regulated entities face continued exposure to sanctions risk if they transact with Iranian counterparties. The 60-day negotiating window is also short enough that commercial counterparties will struggle to execute long-term supply contracts or financing arrangements against it. The verification gap — how the US will confirm Iran's nuclear commitments — adds a further layer of political risk that commodity traders and their lawyers must price into contract force majeure and material adverse change provisions.
On the Ground
A trainee working on an energy transaction with Iranian nexus would draft a sanctions screening memo reviewing the current status of UK, EU, and US designations against Iranian counterparties, and prepare a regulatory filing coordination note tracking the formal unwinding steps required in each jurisdiction before the client can transact.
Interview prep
Soundbite
A US-Iran MOU doesn't lift UK or EU sanctions — energy lawyers face weeks of parallel unwinding processes before clients can transact.
Question you might get
“A UK energy company wants to restart a supply arrangement with an Iranian state-owned entity following the US-Iran deal. What legal steps would you advise them to take before entering into any new contracts?”
Full answer
The US-Iran memorandum of understanding has reopened the Strait of Hormuz and lifted the US naval blockade, but the legal picture for UK and EU energy and commodities clients is far less clear. Sanctions regimes operated by the UK and EU are independent of US executive action, meaning designated Iranian entities remain off-limits to UK and EU-regulated counterparties until those regimes are formally amended. The 60-day negotiating window and Israeli defiance over southern Lebanon add political fragility that makes long-term contract planning difficult. I think the key legal work in the near term will be in sanctions advisory — mapping exactly which designations remain live under each regime — and in reviewing force majeure and MAC (material adverse change) clauses in existing energy supply contracts that reference Hormuz or Iranian counterparties.
Sources
My notes
saved