Israel Presses for Seat at Table as US-Iran Deal Framework Takes Shape Around Hormuz
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke with President Donald Trump on the evening of 23 May 2026 about a memorandum of understanding governing the Strait of Hormuz, the prime minister's office confirmed. The call, disclosed by Netanyahu the following day, comes as the United States advances toward what the president described as an imminent agreement with Iran on its nuclear programme — a deal whose contours remain undisclosed but whose architecture appears to include provisions for the contested waterway.
The Strait of Hormuz is the world's most critical chokepoint for oil shipments, carrying roughly one-fifth of global crude exports. Its status has long been a flashpoint in US-Iranian relations: Tehran has repeatedly threatened to close or restrict the passage during periods of heightened confrontation with Washington, most recently during the broader regional tensions of recent years. Any arrangement that stabilises transit through the strait would carry significant implications for global energy markets, for Gulf Arab states, and for the balance of deterrence in the Persian Gulf.
Trump, speaking to ABC News on 24 May 2026, declined to discuss deal specifics but struck an unequivocally positive tone. "I can't talk about the deal; it's totally up to me, and if there is news, it will only be good news. I don't make bad deals," he said. The president's phrasing — framing any announcement as entirely within his discretion — underscores the degree to which this negotiation remains centrally controlled by the White House, with little visible input from other parties, including traditional American allies in the Gulf and in Israel.
Israel's quiet campaign for a formal role
Netanyahu's public confirmation of the call is notable precisely because such disclosures are rare. Israeli officials have long expressed concern that a US-Iranian rapprochement, absent Israeli input, could result in an agreement that constrains Israel's freedom of action against Iran's regional military infrastructure — the network of proxies and missile capabilities that Tel Aviv views as an existential threat. The prime minister's decision to publicise the Trump conversation signals that Jerusalem wants it on record that it is not being sidelined.
The memorandum on Hormuz, if substantively different from existing international maritime law and UN Convention on the Law of the Sea provisions, would represent a significant diplomatic engineering. It is unclear from the available record whether the proposed MOU would commit Iran to specific navigational guarantees in exchange for sanctions relief, or whether it would create a bilateral US-Iranian framework that circumvents established multilateral channels. The sources reviewed do not specify the MOU's legal character or whether it has been shared with other regional actors.
Israeli commentary has been measured in public, but the underlying concern is structural: a US-Iranian understanding that addresses Hormuz transit could, in practice, reduce the economic leverage Gulf states and the West hold over Tehran, while simultaneously giving Iran a measure of international legitimacy for its shipping posture. For Israel, that trade-off requires careful scrutiny.
What the deal architecture appears to contain
Based on the public statements and the known negotiating parameters, the emerging framework appears to address three distinct tracks: restrictions on Iran's uranium enrichment at levels that would take it years to weapons-grade; the dismantlement or neutering of its ballistic missile programme; and now, apparently, a Hormuz-specific arrangement. Whether these are linked in a single binding agreement or structured as separate understandings remains an open question.
Iran has historically resisted any provision that ties its conventional military posture — including naval activity in the Gulf — to nuclear concessions, arguing that maritime security is governed by separate frameworks. The willingness to discuss a Hormuz MOU alongside nuclear terms, if confirmed, would represent a notable shift in Tehran's negotiating posture. It is unclear whether this reflects genuine Iranian flexibility or a calculated signal designed to accelerate the diplomatic process on terms favourable to Iran.
Gulf Arab states have thus far remained publicly silent on the emerging deal. Their silence is itself notable: Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar have significant equities in Hormuz transit and in the broader regional balance that a US-Iranian accommodation would reconfigure. The sources reviewed do not include statements from any Gulf capital, which suggests either that those governments have been consulted privately or that they have chosen to withhold reaction pending the deal's formal announcement.
The structural dimension: who governs the strait, and on whose terms
The Strait of Hormuz sits at the intersection of several competing governance logics. Internationally, the passage is treated as a critical artery governed by customary international law: innocent passage for commercial vessels is guaranteed, and no single state has the right to close or unilaterally regulate it. In practice, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy has routinely harassed commercial and military vessels in the strait, and Iranian officials have on multiple occasions issued threats to close the passage entirely during periods of acute tension.
A bilateral US-Iranian MOU on Hormuz would sit uneasily within this existing framework. If it creates rights and obligations between Washington and Tehran alone, it could either reinforce the existing legal order — by committing both sides to respect freedom of navigation — or it could create a separate arrangement that effectively allows the two great powers to manage the strait between themselves, marginalising other Gulf states and potentially undermining the UNCLOS framework that smaller states rely upon for legal protection.
The stakes for Gulf Arab states are not abstract. Countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE export the majority of their oil through the strait. Any arrangement that gives Iran a formalised role in Hormuz governance — even a constructive one — shifts the regional balance. Gulf states have historically relied on the US Fifth Fleet and on US security commitments to deter Iranian interference with their shipping. A US-Iranian détente that reduces American military presence in the Gulf would, over time, alter that deterrence calculus.
For Israel, the Hormuz dimension adds a layer of complexity beyond the nuclear file. Tehran's naval capabilities and its network of proxies across the region are components of a unified threat architecture that no single agreement fully addresses. A nuclear deal that leaves Iran's missile and regional military posture intact is, from Jerusalem's perspective, incomplete at best — and potentially dangerous, if it creates the impression of normalisation without the underlying threat being reduced.
What remains unclear
The sources reviewed do not specify the legal character of the proposed Hormuz MOU, whether it has been shared with Gulf Arab governments, what sanctions relief Tehran would receive in exchange, or whether the agreement would include verification mechanisms for its naval provisions. Trump stated that he alone controls the announcement timeline, suggesting that significant negotiating details remain undisclosed even to close allies.
Netanyahu's public disclosure of the call is consistent with a pattern of Israeli transparency when it wants to be seen as engaged, but the substance of whatever Israeli concerns were raised with Trump remains private. The prime minister's statement referenced "future negotiations for a final agreement," suggesting that the Hormuz MOU is either a precursor to a broader deal or a component still under discussion.
The coming days will test whether Trump's "good news" framing holds, and whether the deal — if it materialises — satisfies the interests of all parties, or whether it creates new friction with allies who were consulted late or not at all.
—
This publication's coverage of US-Iranian negotiations prioritises statements from Washington and Tehran as the primary parties, while seeking comment from regional capitals whose interests are directly affected. The wire framing has focused on the diplomatic rapprochement; this piece foregrounds the strategic and legal implications for the Strait of Hormuz specifically.
Wire provenance
This editorial synthesis draws on the following public wire/social posts:
- https://t.me/osintlive/9998
- https://t.me/englishabuali/8876
- https://t.me/BellumActaNews/4451