The world, 6 months into a war that has redefined the notion of security in the Gulf, is once again told that peace is on the horizon. The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz could be a deal in days, according to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this week. Emir of Qatar spoke with President Trump by phone to discuss closing the last remaining differences. Officials say that drafts are already moving back and forth between Tehran and Washington. But just a few hundred nautical miles from where those calls were made, the Iranian authorities went on state television to say that none would cross the strait other than on routes that Tehran approves. That's the most telling contradiction that was announced in practically the same news cycle.

It is important to keep in mind the path we have taken to get here. The war started on 28 February when an American-Israeli attack campaign took place inside Iran, which, among other things, involved the murder of Iran's supreme leader, which broke any restraint that ruled the relationship for decades. To retaliate, Iran closed the Hormuz port entirely; it's a chokepoint through which about one-fifth of the world's oil and an equal amount of liquefied natural gas flows. The next five months were characterised by escalation of brinkmanship, including a US naval blockade of Iranian ports in April, an American bombing campaign against Iranian shipping ports, mined shipping lanes, seized tankers, a sunk tugboat, and over a dozen seafarers killed, before a memorandum of understanding reached in June was supposed to bring all of this to a close, but failed to do so, leading to a further thirteen nights of tit-for-tat strikes in July. Brent crude has rallied from under eighty dollars a barrel prior to the war to over one hundred and twenty six dollars in April, but this week is showing signs of turning back toward the high seventies, before the war, based on nothing more than hope for a settlement. It's a sign by itself of how little faith the market has in any deal.

The military attitude on the water hasn't changed to suit the diplomatic optimism. Since the war began, three American carrier strike groups have rotated in the region, and CENTCOM states that their ships have redirected 40 "commercial vessels" and disabled two by force and boarded two others to enforce the blockade that Washington itself admits remains in place despite the ongoing negotiations. A new carrier, the USS Theodore Roosevelt, is already ready to take over from the Abraham Lincoln team at a time when there is a 60-day negotiating deadline, which is due to expire in two weeks. This is not the attitude of a government that believes a signature can solve this problem. It's the attitude of a government that has found out the hard way that Iranian promises and Iranian actions in the strait have often diverged.

The shipping information corroborates the doubts. Prior to the war, between 130 and 140 ships would pass through Hormuz each day on average. About eight ships were tracked this week, according to ship-tracking companies. Iranian tonnage continues to dominate the traffic and war-risk insurance premiums are still four- or five-times higher than before the war, as the underwriters retain a seventy-two hour cancellation clause which enables them to reprice the moment fighting begins. It is that real price of this stand-off and its being paid every day by all economies which rely on Gulf energy, and not only by the belligerents.

India's journey through this crisis is a lesson to those in how confidence can be put to use, and only if it is earned, not proclaimed. Since March, Indian flagged LPG carriers and crude tankers have been making successive voyages, some accompanied by Indian Navy warships, and some without, on the assumption that the danger has abated sufficiently to be worth the ride. In the first few weeks of the war, New Delhi repatriated over one lakh 70 thousand residents of the greater region, continuously assuring its own populace about the availability of fuel supplies, and had to publicly refute rumours of Iran levying tolls on Indian shipping in Chinese currency. The Pakistani state shipping line has also shipped tankers through the strait, sometimes as the first non-Iranian ship of the day to pass the strait. The fact that the two South Asian flags are flying over these waters, in addition to British naval forces that have long been patrolling the wider Gulf of Oman, suggests a passive pact among energy-dependent countries protecting their own security over what appears to be an ongoing Washington and Tehran posturing.

The caution is further complicated by Saudi Arabia's experience. The kingdom has acknowledged losses in production and pipelines to hundreds of thousands of barrels a day on several occasions throughout the war, and a drone attack earlier in the conflict forced the shut down of Aramco's Ras Tanura refinery. It was a blow that a memorandum can't easily shrug off for a producer whose business model depends on a constant stream of exports.

None of this is to detract from the fact that a deal is not impossible, or that this diplomacy is being played for effect. The markets have reacted the way that they did to Bessent's comments because, after all, they think something is very close. However, the signing of the framework is not the same as a strait that Iran no longer considers a bargaining chip. The ceasefire in February was observed for weeks. The memorandum for the month of June was not as long as that one. Every time, Tehran's hidden agenda that it's set on the terms of passage, not just opening it up, came to the fore in a few weeks. That's not peace, it's the next phase of the war, until someone changes their tune on paper and in reality. And neither Washington's carriers nor Tehran's warnings have shifted from a week ago.