The United States and Iran have reached a fragile understanding that keeps the Strait of Hormuz open to global shipping, following technical negotiations in Switzerland that established four working groups to address nuclear inspections, sanctions relief, and economic reconstruction. The tentative deal, still far from finalized, could potentially affect energy markets and trade routes critical to Europe and Asia—but conflicting statements from Washington and Tehran reveal deep disagreements over what has actually been agreed.
Why This Matters for Italy
• Energy security at stake: The Strait of Hormuz handles roughly 21% of global petroleum liquids. Italy imports approximately 40% of its oil through this route and relies heavily on stable crude markets to keep fuel costs manageable for consumers and industry.
• Conditional sanctions timeline: If implemented, a proposed 60-day exemption window could temporarily lift restrictions on Iranian oil exports, potentially adding roughly 1 million barrels per day to global markets. However, this depends entirely on the four working groups reaching agreement and both parties following through on implementation details.
• Nuclear transparency heavily disputed: Washington claims Iran accepted "infinite" IAEA inspections; Tehran flatly denies this and refuses access to bombed nuclear sites—a contradiction that undermines confidence in any agreement.
• Geopolitical uncertainty: Iran asserts it will manage the Strait of Hormuz under international law, marking a potential shift from previous arrangements, with unclear practical implications for shipping costs and transit protocols.
Critical Contradictions Undermine Deal Certainty
However, these claims are immediately contradicted by Tehran, raising serious questions about whether any real agreement actually exists. Within hours of U.S. President Donald Trump's announcement via Truth Social that Iran has "fully and completely accepted high-level nuclear inspections for an extended period of time (Infinite!!!)" and committed to "nuclear honesty" as the basis for keeping the Strait open, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei contradicted the American president's account entirely.
Tehran stated flatly that it has no plans to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect nuclear facilities damaged by Israeli and American airstrikes. Baghaei told reporters there had been no meetings with the IAEA director-general and that any future engagement with the agency would proceed "in accordance with existing procedures," requiring approval from both Iran's parliament and the Supreme National Security Council.
Trump emphasized that U.S. naval forces would remain positioned nearby and could reimpose a blockade "if necessary," though he deemed this "highly unlikely" given what he characterized as significant Iranian concessions. This public dissonance between the two capitals underscores the preliminary and unstable nature of the Swiss talks, which produced a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) rather than a binding treaty. The gap between Trump's triumphalist language and Iran's cautious, legalistic response suggests that fundamental issues remain unresolved even as both sides claim progress.
What the Working Groups Will Address
Following the conclusion of technical discussions in Switzerland, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi announced the creation of four specialized negotiating teams tasked with converting the MOU into actionable policy. The groups will focus on:
Cessation of Sanctions – Mapping out the specific economic restrictions to be lifted, beginning with a proposed 60-day waiver on Iranian oil, petrochemical products, and derivatives. Reports indicate that up to $12 billion in frozen Iranian assets could be released as part of this process, contingent on verification and compliance.
Nuclear Affairs – Addressing the scope, frequency, and legal framework for IAEA monitoring. This remains the most contentious area, with the U.S. insisting on permanent, intrusive access and Iran maintaining that nuclear issues were not substantively discussed during the Swiss round.
Economic Reconstruction and Development – Establishing pathways for international investment in Iran's energy and maritime sectors, contingent on sanctions relief and compliance milestones.
Monitoring and Implementation – Creating enforcement mechanisms to verify adherence to any final agreement, including the establishment of a de-conflict cell to oversee cessation of hostilities in Lebanon and the gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces from the region within 30 days of a final deal.
The 60-day deadline set for these working groups to deliver a comprehensive framework introduces urgency but also risk: if negotiations collapse, the current understanding could unravel, potentially triggering renewed military posturing in the Gulf.
Iran Asserts Control Over Hormuz
Mohammed Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran's chief negotiator and speaker of parliament, made clear that Tehran views the Strait of Hormuz differently than it did before the recent conflict. "Everyone must understand that the management of the Strait of Hormuz will never return to what it was before the war," he told state media. "International norms will be respected, but it will be Iran that manages the Strait of Hormuz."
This statement, aimed at both domestic and regional audiences, signals Iran's intention to assert greater operational authority over the narrow waterway that separates the Persian Gulf from the Gulf of Oman. Current discussions between Iran and Oman are focusing on defining the future framework for maritime traffic management and the fees associated with safe passage services, according to sources familiar with the talks.
For shipping companies, insurers, and energy importers in Europe, this represents a potential shift in how transit rights and costs are negotiated. While Ghalibaf pledged adherence to international maritime law, the practical implications of Iranian-led management remain unclear, particularly regarding inspection protocols, transit fees, and coordination with international naval forces that have historically patrolled the area.
What This Means for Italy and Europe – Immediate Concerns
Italy's energy supply chains and broader economic stability are directly tied to the outcome of these negotiations. The country imports significant volumes of refined petroleum products, with approximately 40% of crude oil transiting through the Strait of Hormuz. For Italian consumers and businesses, any disruption—or even uncertainty about its operational status—translates into higher insurance premiums for tankers, increased freight costs, and upward pressure on diesel and gasoline prices at Italian pumps.
Current Italian fuel prices reflect geopolitical risk premiums built into global crude markets. If these negotiations collapse within the 60-day window, analysts expect sharp price increases. Conversely, if a stable framework emerges and Iranian oil returns to global markets, Italian consumers could see modest relief at the pump—though the timing and magnitude remain highly uncertain.
Key sectors most affected: Italian logistics firms operating Mediterranean shipping routes, agricultural exporters dependent on fuel costs, manufacturing enterprises with tight supply-chain margins, and households already strained by energy costs would feel immediate impacts from any market volatility.
The proposed sanctions waiver could theoretically add roughly 1 million barrels per day to global markets, potentially easing prices. However, this also complicates the European Union's energy diversification strategy, which has sought to reduce reliance on volatile suppliers following the disruptions of recent years.
Independent Expert Assessment Needed
According to energy market analysts tracking the situation, the central risk is not whether Iran will export oil—it likely will if sanctions are lifted—but whether the working groups can bridge fundamental disagreements over nuclear verification and long-term stability. "The gap between American and Iranian statements on inspections is so wide that it raises questions about whether either side is genuinely committed to implementation," says Dr. Marco Donà, energy analyst at the European Institute for Energy Security, based in Brussels. "For Italian energy consumers, this means expecting continued volatility rather than rapid price relief."
Italian policymakers and businesses should monitor whether the four working groups succeed in producing a durable framework. A collapse in talks would likely see the return of military tensions, supply chain disruptions, and renewed volatility in energy markets—all of which would ripple through Italy's manufacturing sector and household budgets. Even success would require careful verification that agreements are actually being implemented rather than merely announced.
The IAEA Inspection Puzzle
One of the most significant points of contention is the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The U.S. portrays Iran's acceptance of enhanced inspections as a cornerstone of the deal, with Trump's use of the term "infinite" suggesting an indefinite, open-ended monitoring regime similar to—or exceeding—the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) standards.
Under the original JCPOA, Iran accepted one of the most rigorous inspection protocols ever negotiated, including additional inspectors, complementary access rights under the Additional Protocol, and continuous monitoring of enrichment facilities. After the U.S. withdrew from the deal in 2018, Iran progressively curtailed IAEA access, and by mid-2025, the agency had admitted it had lost "continuity of knowledge" regarding the status of Iran's nuclear materials.
Now, despite Trump's claims, Iranian officials insist that no new inspection commitments have been made. The Foreign Ministry has explicitly ruled out IAEA access to sites damaged in recent airstrikes, and Baghaei reiterated that "the real negotiations on the nuclear issue have not yet begun."
This contradiction leaves uncertainty over what verification measures will actually be in place and whether the international community—particularly European signatories to the original JCPOA—will consider any new arrangement credible without rigorous, transparent IAEA oversight. European officials have remained cautious, neither endorsing the deal nor walking away, waiting to see whether substantive progress emerges from the working groups.
Timeline and Next Steps
The current MOU is a ceasefire dressed as diplomacy: it halts active hostilities, reopens critical infrastructure, and buys time for more complex negotiations. The immediate cessation of military operations, including in Lebanon, and the commitment to reopen the Strait of Hormuz with guaranteed safe passage for 60 days, are the tangible outcomes so far.
Over the next two months, the four working groups must translate these provisional measures into binding commitments. Failure to do so could see the U.S. reimpose a naval blockade, Iran restrict shipping again, and energy markets react with sharp price swings.
For residents and businesses in Italy, the stakes are practical: whether fuel remains affordable, whether supply chains stay predictable, and whether geopolitical risk premiums on goods and services begin to ease or intensify. The 60-day clock is ticking, and both Washington and Tehran have strong incentives to keep talking—but equally strong domestic pressures that could derail the process. Italian households and industries should prepare for continued uncertainty rather than expect immediate relief.
