The Strait of Hormuz is open again. That’s the good news. Cargo ships and oil tankers are moving through one of the world’s most critical chokepoints after three and a half months of a conflict that nearly broke the global economy. But behind the resumed shipping lies a deal that has Democrats calling it “one of the biggest American disasters,” and a president who says he hasn’t learned any lessons about the limits of his power.
In an interview with Axios, Donald Trump asserted he has unlimited power and insisted the agreement with Iran amounts to “unconditional surrender” by Tehran. That’s quite a claim, especially given the backlash already pouring in from Capitol Hill.
The agreement, signed Thursday, includes a 60-day negotiating window to reach a final deal, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and a framework for nuclear talks. Several key details remain unresolved. So the deal isn’t really a deal — it’s more like a timeout with aclock ticking.
Trump framed it as necessary to prevent a worldwide depression. The conflict shut the Strait of Hormuz, rattling global energy markets in a way we haven’t seen in decades. The president asked during the Axios interview what additional weeks of bombardment would have achieved while the strait remained closed. It’s a fair question, even if his critics will hate hearing it.
The Criticism Is Ruthless
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer didn’t hold back. He said Trump did a “very poor job of negotiating” and declared the U.S. was worse off than before the war started. That’s harsh language, but it’s the kind of rhetoric you expect when $100 billion in estimated war costs is on the table.
Senator Peter Welch went further, arguing Iran retained leverage through its control of the Strait and that the conflict failed to achieve core objectives: regime change and ending Iran’s missile and nuclear program. Welch called the outcome “a failure.”
Trump’s response to the criticism? Those who think he was soft on Tehran are either “jealous, bad people or stupid.” That kind of dismissiveness might play to his base, but it doesn’t actually address the substance of the critiques.
What’s notably missing from the conversation is any real accounting of what the war actually achieved. The Strait is open now, sure. But was a $100 billion conflict the only way to get here? And what happens after the 60-day window closes?
There are real tensions in this story that shouldn’t be collapsed into a simple political narrative. The business implications are enormous: energy markets stabilized, shipping routes reopened, global supply chains unblocked. Those are tangible wins. But the geopolitical objectives — the big ones Trump presumably started this whole thing for — appear unmet. That’s not spin. That’s just what the senators are saying, and they’re citing specific failures.
What’s Actually Happening on the Ground
Shipping activity through the Strait picked up immediately after the agreement took effect. At least 18 transits were recorded during the June 17-18 period, the highest count since the conflict began, according to maritime intelligence firm Windward. U.S. Central Command said Thursday that American forces lifted all blockade enforcement on maritime traffic entering and exiting Iranian coastal areas. American naval forces will remain in the area to monitor compliance.
Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance canceled a planned trip to Switzerland where he had been expected to begin the 60-day negotiations with Iranian officials. The White House cited logistical reasons, though some might wonder if the cancellation signals something more complicated about the talks ahead.
The deal has exposed fractures in how both parties view American power and diplomacy. Democrats are hammering the president from the left, arguing he caved. Whether that’s fair or not depends a lot on what you thought the war was supposed to accomplish in the first place.
Looking at the broader picture, this feels less like a victory and more like an expensive stalemate where everyone is trying to declare a win. The Strait is open, which matters enormously for global energy and trade. But the deeper issues — Iran’s nuclear program, its regional influence, the missiles — remain exactly where they were before billions were spent and months of instability wreaked havoc on international markets.
That might be the most honest assessment anyone can offer right now: we bought some time, and we’ll see what 60 days brings.
