Freedom of navigation in the Middle East or elsewhere can no longer be assumed

The June announcement of a 60-day U.S.–Iran ceasefire is best understood as temporary rather than a lasting resolution.

A central element at stake is the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to ship traffic. Since the agreement, only a small number of the ships trapped since the start of the conflict were able to transit before attacks began again. Even with a full de-escalation, conditions are not expected to return to normal quickly because security, infrastructure, and traffic flows would need to be rebuilt.

The Strait is not operating as a fully open commercial route, but as a corridor whose status is influenced by continued negotiations, military presence and risk-based decisions on the part of ocean carriers.

The agreement also included a phased rollback of U.S. military and economic measures, including lifting the naval blockade and reducing interference with commercial traffic. However, U.S. forces are expected to maintain a regional presence, with a monitoring and security role, and Iran’s desire for continued influence leaves questions about authority, access, and enforcement.

Taken together, these developments point to a broader shift: Freedom of navigation can no longer be assumed. Access to major shipping corridors is increasingly shaped by state power, selective enforcement, and competing legal claims rather than stable international norms.

This matters beyond the Middle East, as similar dynamics could emerge in places like the Strait of Malacca or the South China Sea. For supply chains, geopolitical risk at key chokepoints must now be treated as a core planning factor when making sourcing and freight routing decisions.

Importantly, the agreement remains conditional and reversible. Both sides have indicated the ability to escalate quickly if compliance breaks down, keeping the operating environment fragile. Even with progress, a likely near-term scenario is managed instability, where disruption risk persists despite de-escalation or periods of de-escalation.

Global freight and fuel markets remain vulnerable

From a global freight perspective, the ceasefire introduces the potential for gradual normalization rather than an immediate reset. Ocean vessel routings that were extended or diverted to avoid conflict zones are unlikely to revert quickly, as carriers remain cautious in re-establishing standard rotations. See more in the ocean freight section of this report.

Similarly, air cargo operations may continue using modified flight paths in the near term. The result is that transit times and schedule reliability may improve gradually but remain less predictable than pre-disruption levels. See more in the air freight section of this report.

The more immediate impact has been felt in fuel markets. The announcement of an agreement has helped ease oil and diesel prices, but this does not signal a full return to stability. Inventories remain strained and supply chains have already adapted to disruption through longer routings, higher insurance costs, and increased buffers. Fuel markets are likely to remain sensitive to any renewed instability, with pricing volatility remaining elevated compared to long-term averages.

Table of Contents