Trump’s Iran Peace Deal and Strait of Hormuz Reopening Spark Optimism for Middle East Stability

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s historic Iran peace deal is generating significant optimism for long-term stability in the Middle East, according to former U.S. Special Envoy for Ukraine Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg (ret.). The agreement, which includes the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, is expected to reshape regional power dynamics and permanently prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The landmark agreement is scheduled to be signed in Switzerland on Friday. The deal is structured in two primary stages: the first focuses on clearing mines and reopening the critical waterway without charging tolls for transiting vessels. The second stage aims to fundamentally reshape the balance of power in the region by strictly limiting Iran’s weapon capabilities.

The announcement has already sent ripples through global markets. Commodities and shipping insurance markets, which often operate on emotion, reacted swiftly to the news. Crude oil prices dropped sharply, falling 5.5% and potentially dipping below $80 a barrel. With nearly a quarter of the world’s oil supply passing through the Strait of Hormuz, the free flow of traffic is expected to drive energy prices down precipitously.

President Trump is currently en route to France for the G7 Summit, where the Iran agreement is expected to be a top agenda item in discussions with European counterparts. Meanwhile, former President Barack Obama has cast doubt on the agreement, suggesting it might not be much different from the deal negotiated during his time in office.

Lt. Gen. Kellogg, however, strongly disputes that comparison and gave full credit to Trump for successfully shutting down Iran’s nuclear program. He emphasized that while previous administrations discussed the threat, Trump took decisive action to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed state—a regime Kellogg noted is responsible for the deaths of thousands of American citizens, including many of his friends.

“People need to really understand what he has done,” Kellogg stated, noting that the move prevents a broader Middle East arms race. If Iran had secured a nuclear weapon, it is highly likely that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates would have followed suit. Kellogg warned that the theocratic government in Iran is unpredictable and potentially dangerous enough to use such a weapon against Israel or other nations.

A major point of discussion is how this new agreement differs from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated under Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry. Kellogg pointed out that the Obama-era deal contained critical sunset clauses. Under that framework, restrictions on enriched uranium and centrifuges would have expired after 2025, and the international community would have been unable to snap back sanctions if Iran violated the terms.

By contrast, Trump’s approach eliminates these expiration dates, ensuring that the restrictions remain in place indefinitely. “It is nice for Obama to say that he is the one that created… having snapback, known snapback provisions, sunset clauses on his watch,” Kellogg remarked, criticizing the previous administration for allowing those vulnerabilities to exist.

While Kellogg acknowledged that the Iranian regime cannot be fully trusted—comparing the dynamic to dealing with North Korea—he noted that Iran’s military is currently depleted and its regional influence has waned significantly, making it a favorable time to negotiate.

The long-term benefits of the deal are also being recognized by younger generations. When asked by a young conservative commentator about the stark contrast between past administrations and the current policy, Kellogg agreed that the impact on future generations is profound. He drew parallels to Obama’s “red line in the sand” regarding chemical weapons in Syria, which was crossed without military consequence, contrasting it with Trump taking decisive action just three months after coming into office to enforce boundaries.

Ultimately, Kellogg stressed that treating a nuclear-armed nation is vastly different from dealing with a non-nuclear one. By drawing a definitive line and dismantling the nuclear threat, the administration has potentially saved younger generations from the brink of nuclear war, securing a safer future for grandchildren and children alike.