Iran Sets Sweeping New Demands to Reopen Strait of Hormuz, Tells U.S. to ‘Correct Its Behavior’

Tehran demands U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East, sanctions relief and war compensation as negotiations over the strategic waterway reach a critical stage

by Emmitt Barry, Worthy News Washington D.C. Bureau Chief

TEHRAN/JERUSALEM (Worthy News) – Iran has dramatically expanded its conditions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, demanding that the United States withdraw its forces from the Middle East, lift sanctions, release frozen Iranian assets and fully compensate Tehran for damage suffered during the war.

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council declared Saturday that the strategic waterway would remain restricted until Washington “corrects its behavior,” according to The Times of Israel and international news agencies.

Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, secretary of the council and a senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander, said the United States must permanently end hostilities against Iran and its regional allies, remove its naval blockade of Iranian ports and refrain from threatening the Islamic Republic again.

The demands represent a substantial escalation because many had previously been associated with negotiations toward a comprehensive peace agreement. Tehran is now presenting them as conditions merely for reopening one of the world’s most strategically important shipping corridors.

Reuters separately reported that Iran is nearing an agreement with Oman over navigation and management of the strait but that Tehran insists an Oman agreement alone will not result in its reopening. Iranian officials have tied reopening to American concessions, including sanctions relief and compensation.

The Strait of Hormuz has become one of Tehran’s most powerful bargaining chips. Its narrow shipping lanes serve as a critical gateway between the Persian Gulf and global energy markets, giving Iran enormous potential leverage over oil and natural-gas exports.

The dispute has already extended beyond diplomacy. The United Arab Emirates accused Iran on Saturday of firing a missile at a vessel connected to Abu Dhabi’s state oil company ADNOC. Reuters reported that ADNOC said its shipping operations have suffered repeated missile and drone attacks during the conflict.

Vice President JD Vance nevertheless indicated that negotiations remain alive. He told Fox News that Iranian officials had assured Washington they currently had “no plans” to impose tolls on vessels crossing Hormuz, although he cautioned that the administration would judge Tehran by its actions.

The United States has demanded unrestricted navigation through the strait while Iran has sought greater authority over vessels entering the Persian Gulf. Those fundamentally different positions remain among the central obstacles to a lasting settlement.

Why Lasting Peace With Iran Remains So Difficult

The dispute is not merely about territory, sanctions or shipping. At the heart of the Islamic Republic is an ideological system that views Iran’s confrontation with America and Israel through a religious and revolutionary lens.

Iran’s constitution formally establishes Twelver Ja’fari Shi’a Islam as the country’s permanent official religion. It also incorporates the doctrine of Islamic jurist leadership during the absence—or “occultation”—of the Twelfth Imam, placing religious authority at the center of the state’s political structure.

Twelver Shi’a Muslims believe that the twelfth Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, disappeared from public view and will ultimately return. That belief by itself does not mean ordinary Twelver Shi’a Muslims favor war with America or Israel, and millions of Shi’a Muslims around the world should not be identified with Tehran’s political program.

The difficulty lies in the particular revolutionary interpretation adopted by Iran’s ruling regime, especially the doctrine of velayat-e faqih—the guardianship of the Islamic jurist—which transformed religious authority into a system of government following the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

For Tehran’s leadership, resistance to American influence and opposition to Israel have become more than conventional foreign-policy positions. They are woven deeply into the Islamic Republic’s revolutionary identity.

That was illustrated again in May when Iran’s Supreme Leader described America as the “Great Satan” while portraying Iran’s struggle against the United States and Israel in explicitly religious terms.

The hostility is not merely historical rhetoric. In November 2025, the Supreme Leader’s official website quoted him saying that meaningful cooperation with Washington could only even be considered after the United States ended its support for Israel, withdrew its military bases from the region and ceased interfering in regional affairs.

Those demands closely resemble the conditions Tehran is now attaching to the Strait of Hormuz.

That ideological dimension helps explain why agreements with Iran repeatedly face deeper problems than negotiating individual sanctions, borders or maritime regulations. Washington generally approaches negotiations as a search for mutually enforceable arrangements between states. Iran’s ruling establishment also views the confrontation as part of a decades-long revolutionary struggle over American influence, Israel and the future political order of the Middle East.

A ceasefire may therefore be achievable. A shipping agreement may be achievable. Even a broader diplomatic settlement may eventually be possible.

But genuine peace would require something much deeper: a fundamental change in the Islamic Republic’s longstanding view of America and Israel as ideological enemies rather than simply competing nations.

For now, Tehran’s latest demands suggest that struggle is far from over.

Latest Worthy News