Tracking the Iran-Israel-US crisis since the first strikes in March 2026. Strait of Hormuz, global reactions, economic and diplomatic consequences.
Click a flag to see blind spots
The US-Iran war enters its sixth week with accelerating global economic consequences. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed, oil prices exceed $114 per barrel, and at least 12 countries in Asia and Africa have imposed energy rationing measures. The IRGC has expanded its threats to American universities and officials' residences in Iraq, while Washington faces a command crisis: Defense Secretary Hegseth fired the Army Chief of Staff during active military operations. Trump tells allies to go find their own oil, as South Korea prepares to ban private vehicles if oil reaches $120 per barrel.
Updated on June 14, 2026
These countries document the gap between Washington's triumphant announcements and Tehran's repeated denials. They recall the precedent of multiple broken promises and insist that a 60-day ceasefire without binding verification does not constitute a definitive settlement.
These countries read the deal primarily as a nuclear and security precedent. Israel fears Iranian consolidation, Ukraine monitors rearmament by Moscow, South Korea compares the process to stalled negotiations with Pyongyang, and Poland scrutinizes the solidity of American guarantees on non-proliferation.
New Delhi and Manila measure the agreement by its direct effects on oil prices and maritime route security. For them, the reopening of Hormuz is a concrete economic question — national energy bills, remittances from expatriate workers — rather than an episode of power politics.
Who is the winner of the negotiation?
English-language and Australian perspectives emphasize that the leaked terms favor Tehran's initial position, while Washington and Islamabad present the deal as an American success. Iran itself claims victory, which some countries perceive as a strategic alarm signal.
Reliability of nuclear guarantees
For Israel, South Korea, and Poland, the central question is the robustness of nuclear verification mechanisms (IAEA role, dilution on Iranian soil). Washington and Pakistan emphasize the principle of a formal Iranian commitment against the bomb, without entering into these procedural details.
Russia's role in the dynamic
Ukraine signals that Russia may have reconstituted approximately 75% of the Iranian missile arsenal during the ceasefire, contradicting official American figures. No other perspective mentions this dimension, and Moscow frames the subject exclusively in terms of the redistribution of control over Hormuz.
The announcement of a US-Iran deal comes three months after the outbreak of an armed conflict that closed the Strait of Hormuz — a passage carrying 20% of global oil trade — and triggered a global energy shock. The elimination of Supreme Leader Khamenei in airstrikes on February 28 reconfigured the Iranian equation: Tehran negotiates from a militarily weakened position but retaining strategic maritime leverage. Pakistan imposed itself as the pivot mediator, with Qatar in support, in a bilateral format that bypasses usual multilateral frameworks (IAEA, E3 format). The regional context remains volatile: Israel continues to strike Lebanon, Iranian drones remain active in the strait, and Western intelligence reports partial reconstitution of the Iranian arsenal during the ceasefire. The G7 meeting in Europe and American midterm elections in autumn 2026 create calendar pressure on Washington, which Tehran perceives as negotiating leverage. A final agreement, if materialized, would leave unresolved the Iranian missile program, uranium enrichment caps, and Lebanon's status — variables that will condition the durability of any ceasefire.