A two-week ceasefire between the United States and Iran is easing fears of a prolonged energy disruption after both sides agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The move has sent oil and gas prices sharply lower while supporting a broader market rebound.
BNN Bloomberg spoke with Andrew Peek, director at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, who said the deal leaves key issues unresolved but could increase pressure on Iran if it risks breaking the ceasefire as shipping resumes.
Key Takeaways
- A two-week ceasefire includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz, restoring a key global energy supply route.
- Oil and gas prices dropped sharply as markets reacted to reduced supply disruption risks.
- Core disputes remain unresolved, including control and enforcement in the strait.
- Iran faces higher political and military risks if it attempts to enforce control during the ceasefire.
- The truce remains fragile, with uncertainty around compliance and longer-term negotiations.
Read the full transcript below:
ANDREW B.: Let’s get more on the ceasefire deal from Andrew Peek, director at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center and a former senior official in both Trump administrations. Andrew, thank you for joining us.
One interesting point here is that Iran appears to have de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz right now.
ANDREW P.: Right. A few key points in the ceasefire were left unadjudicated. What happens in Lebanon? Does the ceasefire apply there? What happens to control of the Strait of Hormuz? Does Iran get to charge ships passing through?
The practical effect of the war has been to lower the political cost for Iran of enforcing military control of the strait. Because of its geography, Iran has always had latent control, but ordinarily, if it fired on ships transiting the strait, it would bear significant political and potentially military costs.
The ceasefire could work in the U.S.’s favour in that respect, because it has now raised the political cost for Iran of breaking the agreement. If merchant ships try to pass without paying Iran, especially if escorted by U.S. or allied vessels, Iran would face the choice of breaking the ceasefire or challenging Western naval forces.
ANDREW B.: So is this a major victory for Iran?
ANDREW P.: It’s too early to tell. There’s still so much that remains unadjudicated in the competing diplomatic proposals. President Trump referenced a 15-point U.S. proposal this morning, while Iran had its own 10-point proposal yesterday.
There’s a lot that’s unknown, but I’ve always thought the U.S. could walk away and still declare a victory because of the degradation of Iran’s military threat. It could take the approach that Israel has taken with Hezbollah — that setting capabilities back by several years constitutes a win.
The U.S. could argue it has reduced Iran’s threat to the region and diminished its control over the Strait of Hormuz, and leave Iran to deal with the consequences. Even with unclear diplomacy, that case could be made.
ANDREW B.: We’ve also learned that relatively low-cost weapons have allowed Iran to disrupt this critical waterway.
ANDREW P.: Absolutely. The risk tolerance for merchant shipping appears to be much lower than expected. Even the possibility that Iran could use relatively cheap, asymmetric weapons to inflict damage has discouraged transit.
We saw during the first Trump administration that even when allies in Europe and the Gulf were hesitant about U.S. Iran policy, Iran’s behaviour — its missile use and proxy activity — often pushed them toward alignment with Washington.
If Iran tries to enforce permanent control of the strait, especially through force, it would likely provoke a broader international response aimed at ensuring free passage rather than allowing Iran to dominate the waterway.
ANDREW B.: So if ships move through without coordinating with Iran and are attacked, Tehran would risk breaking the ceasefire and confronting Western navies.
ANDREW P.: Exactly. The situation is better for the U.S. than it was 48 hours ago because those additional political and military costs are now on Iran. We’ll see whether that holds over the next two weeks.
ANDREW B.: President Trump says he has achieved “regime change” in Iran, which seems questionable.
ANDREW P.: There are different interpretations of regime change. In some cases, leadership pressure can shift negotiating positions without a full change in government.
What matters is whether Iran’s stance evolves. Historically, it has refused to negotiate on missiles, proxies or uranium enrichment. If it begins to engage on those issues in a more concrete way, with less maximalist positions, that could suggest meaningful change in leadership behaviour, even if the regime itself remains intact.
ANDREW B.: Iran and Russia have also been working together. How does Russia factor into this?
ANDREW P.: Russia and China are aligned strategically, but their interests differ in the Middle East. China prefers lower oil prices, while Russia, as a major exporter, benefits from higher prices.
Russia has faced setbacks in the region, including the loss of Syria as a key ally and recent U.S. actions targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities. It is looking to reassert influence and gain leverage in broader geopolitical negotiations.
By strengthening ties with Iran, Russia may seek leverage that could be used in negotiations over Ukraine or other issues.
ANDREW B.: You mentioned “horizontal leverage.” What does that mean?
ANDREW P.: It refers to expanding negotiations beyond a single issue. For example, linking outcomes in Ukraine with developments in the Middle East or other regions. Russia may look to connect these issues to strengthen its overall negotiating position.
ANDREW B.: Andrew, thank you for your time.
ANDREW P.: Thank you.
---
This BNN Bloomberg summary and transcript of the April 8, 2026 interview with Andrew Peek are published with the assistance of AI. Original research, interview questions and added context was created by BNN Bloomberg journalists. An editor also reviewed this material before it was published to ensure its accuracy and adherence with BNN Bloomberg editorial policies and standards.
