Vice President JD Vance told reporters at a White House press briefing Thursday that the U.S. Navy has allowed more than a dozen ships through to Iranian ports, lifting a blockade that had choked off one of the world's most vital oil corridors for months. The move, Vance said, is part of an agreement to end hostilities between the United States and Iran, a deal that promises a permanent ceasefire and a 60-day window to negotiate the future of Tehran's nuclear program.

Oil is moving again through the Strait of Hormuz. More than 12.5 million barrels passed through Wednesday night alone, Vance told reporters, the highest volume since the conflict began in late February. Two oil tankers left Iran on Tuesday and crossed the U.S. military blockade without being stopped, carrying a combined 3.8 million barrels of Iranian crude.

The question now is whether Iran will hold up its end.

What the agreement says, and what it doesn't

The deal calls for a permanent end to hostilities and starts a 60-day negotiating clock to reach a final agreement on Iran's nuclear program. It states that Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium, believed to be buried under rubble, must at minimum be diluted under international supervision. Iran also commits not to procure or develop nuclear weapons, a pledge Tehran has made before.

Beyond those broad strokes, much remains unresolved. The agreement would restore the status quo before the war, including ending hostilities, restarting U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, and reopening the Strait of Hormuz. But as Breitbart reported, the deal also immediately waives U.S.-backed sanctions on Iran, and Vance defended unwritten "gentlemen's agreements" with Tehran by saying: "We don't trust words. We trust action and we trust conduct."

President Trump left the door open to resume attacks if Iran fails to comply. That leverage matters, especially given Tehran's long history of negotiating in bad faith.

Ships moving, but the strait is far from clear

Lloyd's List Intelligence, a maritime data firm, confirmed that major shipowners have begun moving vessels through the Strait of Hormuz since the agreement was signed. Richard Meade, Lloyd's List editor in chief, said at a media briefing that "for the first time in 110 days, ships owned by major companies are transiting the strait after effectively being marooned there since February."

Tankers controlled by Grimaldi Group, Cosco, Knutsen, and NYK have passed through. So have two Iran-flagged, sanctioned crude oil tankers owned by the National Iranian Tanker Company, a detail that raises its own set of questions about how sanctions enforcement squares with the new arrangement.

The conflict's toll on the U.S. military has been real. Seven American service members have been killed since the fighting began.

But the waterway is not fully open. Phillip Belcher, marine director of Intertanko, a trade group for global independent tanker owners, said the main central route of the Strait of Hormuz remains closed and has an estimated 80 mines that need to be cleared. Ships are currently using a Northern route through Iranian waters and a Southern route through Omani waters to navigate around the danger zone.

Iranian state media, for its part, said shipping has "normalized" at Iran's southern ports but added that the Strait of Hormuz remains supervised and under the control of the Iranian military, and that transiting the waterway still requires coordination with Tehran. That claim, that Iran controls transit through an international waterway, deserves more scrutiny than it has received.

From enforcement to easing, the shift in posture

The blockade's enforcement was no abstraction. Just the News reported that U.S. forces fired 20mm rounds from a Navy jet into the rudder of the Iranian-flagged oil tanker Hasna in the Gulf of Oman after the vessel attempted to breach the blockade and reach an Iranian port. U.S. Central Command confirmed the incident, stating "Hasna is no longer transiting to Iran." The crew had failed to respond to multiple warnings.

That kind of active enforcement, disabling vessels, firing on ships that refused to comply, was the posture just weeks ago. U.S. forces disabled two Iranian tankers as the standoff in the strait intensified earlier in the conflict.

Now the Navy has been ordered to stand down and let ships through. The pivot is sharp. Vance framed it as fulfilling American obligations under the new deal.

"So we're also honoring our end of the early part of the agreement on the military side."

U.S. Central Command, as AP News reported, stated that American warships "will remain in the general area to make sure that all aspects of the agreement are adhered to, obeyed and in full force and effect." That presence is a hedge, a signal that the easing can be reversed.

Vance put it in transactional terms: "As they dial up their good behavior, we can dial up the economic relief. If they dial down their good behavior, we can turn it off."

Vance warns Israel, and defends the deal's logic

The vice president also used the briefing to push back on critics, including voices inside the Israeli government, who have argued the agreement tilts too heavily in Iran's favor. The deal does appear to offer Iran several benefits up front, sanctions relief, a reopened strait, oil revenue flowing again, while the harder commitments, including the nuclear question, are pushed into the 60-day negotiating window.

Vance was blunt with Israeli critics. He warned against "attacking the only powerful ally" Israel has left, and said:

"Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time."

That message carried a clear edge: don't bite the hand. Whether Israeli leaders heed it may depend on how the next 60 days unfold.

The New York Post reported that the deal nearly fell apart over Iran's refusal to publicly agree to surrender its enriched uranium before the Strait was reopened. Iran's top negotiator, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, said at the time: "We do not trust guarantees and words, only actions are the criterion. No action will be taken before the other side acts." That kind of language, mirroring Vance's own rhetoric about trusting conduct over words, suggests both sides are watching each other with one hand on the switch.

What remains unresolved

Vance said he plans to travel to Switzerland for further talks on implementing the agreement but did not specify when. He had been expected to lead the negotiations. The 60-day clock is ticking, and the list of unresolved issues is long.

The three-month war that preceded this deal saw Iranian strikes on U.S. airbases, American casualties, and a historic energy crisis triggered by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The blockade that began April 13 was designed to squeeze Tehran into abandoning its uranium enrichment. Whether a deal that lifts that pressure before the nuclear question is settled will produce the desired result is the central gamble.

The Navy's posture has shifted from navigating contradictory signals from Pentagon leadership to executing a diplomatic stand-down in one of the most contested waterways on earth. Eighty mines still sit in the main shipping channel. Sanctioned Iranian tankers are moving freely. And Iran claims control over transit through a strait that the rest of the world considers international waters.

The deal's defenders say the leverage remains: American warships stay in the region, and the president can resume military action if Iran cheats. The deal's skeptics note that Iran has been given what it wanted most, oil revenue and sanctions relief, before it has given up anything irreversible.

Sixty days will tell us which side read the other correctly. History suggests caution when Tehran makes promises it has made before.