Iran has reportedly closed the vital Strait of Hormuz in response to Israeli attacks on Lebanon, according to its own state media, despite a freshly agreed conditional ceasefire with the United States that included a provision to temporarily reopen the crucial maritime passage. The move threatens to plunge a tense regional situation into deeper crisis and calls into question the durability of the nascent US-Iran deal.
The hours-old, two-week ceasefire had envisaged the strait reopening, yet Iranian authorities were said to be treating it as still closed, with traffic not increasing in the immediate aftermath of the announcement. Reinforcing that position, Tehran said it would only offer safe passage in coordination with its armed forces, and its coast guard issued a stark warning that any ship attempting to transit without permission would be “targeted and destroyed.”
This key chokepoint, through which a substantial portion of the world’s seaborne oil passes, has long been a flashpoint in US-Iran tensions. However, the White House presented a starkly contradictory account. Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt called reports of a renewed closure “completely unacceptable” and claimed there had actually been an “uptick in traffic.” She stated President Donald Trump’s expectation was for the strait to be “reopened immediately without any limitations,” insisting the public reports were false and highlighted a divergence between Iran’s public and private stances.
Trump’s immediate priorities, according to Leavitt, are the strait’s reopening and Iran turning over its enriched uranium. She indicated Tehran had given signs it would hand over its uranium, affirming that Trump’s red line on ending Iranian enrichment remained unchanged. In a notable aside, Leavitt also revealed the president had floated the idea of the US earning revenue from the strait by charging tolls on shipping, a concept she said would be discussed in the coming fortnight.
The crisis escalated alongside a parallel conflict. The reported closure was framed by Iran as a response to major Israeli strikes across Lebanon which reportedly killed over 250 people. The White House explicitly stated that Lebanon was not party to the US-Iran ceasefire. Leavitt clarified that “Lebanon is not part of the ceasefire deal and that has been relayed to all parties,” citing a statement from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who, she said, supported the ceasefire efforts and would remain a key negotiating partner.
A “Frank and Candid” Conversation with NATO
As the Middle East crisis simmered, President Trump’s focus also turned sharply towards America’s transatlantic alliance. Leavitt confirmed that withdrawing the US from NATO was an idea Trump had discussed and would be raising again in a meeting with Secretary General Mark Rutte in Washington.
She relayed a pointed message from the president, that the alliance was “tested and they failed.” Leavitt elaborated, saying, “It’s quite sad that Nato turned [its] backs on the American people over the course of the last six weeks, when It’s the American people who have been funding their defence.” The planned discussion with Rutte was characterised as a “frank and candid conversation” about these grievances.
The US Case for the Moral High Ground
The White House briefing repeatedly confronted questions about the administration’s rhetoric and moral standing, particularly after Trump’s earlier threat against Iran. When asked how the US could claim the moral high ground following a threat to destroy a civilisation, Leavitt defended the president’s approach as results-oriented. “I understand questions about the rhetoric but what he cares about is results. And his tough style is what led to this result that you’re all witnessing today,” she said, adding that the world should take his words “very seriously.”
Pressed again on the moral high ground, Leavitt’s response was more comprehensive and revealing of the administration’s fundamental perspective. She called any insinuation that Iran held a moral advantage “insulting,” framing the decades-long hostility as a central justification.
“The insinuation by anyone in this room, that Iran somehow has the moral high ground over the United States of America is insulting, considering the atrocities that they have committed against our people and our military over the past five decades,” Leavitt stated. She further argued, “The president absolutely has the moral high ground … to suggest otherwise is frankly insulting,” citing Iran’s enduring chants of “death to America.” This argument anchors the US position in a long historical narrative of perceived Iranian aggression, using it to contextualise and legitimise current pressures and threats as a warranted response.
Amid the turmoil, the administration signalled continued diplomatic outreach. Leavitt confirmed that Vice President JD Vance, whose role she described as “very significant,” would travel to Islamabad for peace talks starting Saturday, accompanied by special envoy Steve Witkoff and senior advisor Jared Kushner. She also noted Trump’s “great respect” for Chinese President Xi Jinping and his expectation to visit China in the coming weeks.
