Iran's foreign ministry rejected reports that the Strait of Hormuz had been closed again, saying commercial vessels were passing under measures adopted as part of a June 18 memorandum intended to end the war.
A ministry spokesperson told Iranian state media that the armed forces had arranged safe passage through the waterway. The statement followed contradictory reports that warning shots had been fired and ships told not to approach, raising concern that a provisional US-Iran peace arrangement was already under strain.
Iranian activist Ilia Hashemi reported on Telegram that warning fire occurred, then later said it had stopped. He also said vessels received no radio answer when asking whether the channel was closed. Those observations were not official navigation instructions and were not independently corroborated in the packet.
The Persian Gulf Strait Authority said ships could transit if they submitted requests meeting its requirements at least 48 hours before arrival. It said no passage fees would be charged for 60 days. That system supported Iran's claim that movement continued, but it also made access conditional on approval rather than wholly unrestricted.
The distinction mattered because Hormuz is a major energy and commercial route. A waterway may remain physically passable while uncertainty, military warnings or administrative requirements discourage traffic. Operators also rely on notices from flag states, insurers and security authorities, not only public statements by a coastal government.
The confusion coincided with fresh Israel-Lebanon violence. Israel reported four soldiers killed in the south on Thursday and five injured by an explosive drone the following day. Israeli forces attacked sites across southern Lebanon that they described as Hezbollah personnel and infrastructure. At least 18 people were reported killed in those strikes.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promised a forceful response to attacks on Israeli troops, while National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir used broader incendiary rhetoric about Lebanon. The escalation mattered to Hormuz diplomacy because planned US-Iran discussions on implementing their initial agreement in Switzerland were postponed as regional tensions rose.
The supplied report did not establish whether warning fire came from Iranian forces, how many ships received clearance or how much traffic moved that day. It did establish the official policy Iran announced: advance applications, a temporary fee waiver and permitted commercial transit.
Tehran's denial therefore answered the narrow question of formal closure but did not eliminate operational uncertainty. Safe and predictable navigation would require consistent radio communication, transparent approval standards and an absence of attacks—not merely statements that the route remained open. Consistency would be decisive.
