The Wall Street Journal reports that the rapid recovery of the oil market toward pre-war levels between the US and Iran is placing Tehran’s leverage over global energy markets at risk, citing evaluations from industry analysts.

Sector analyses indicate that oil prices, currently hovering around $70 per barrel, could decline further in the coming months.

Analysts at Macquarie and Citigroup project that the price of oil could fall to as low as $60 per barrel.

Alongside expectations of falling prices, tanker transit through the Strait of Hormuz is rapidly returning to its previous patterns, while oil producers in the Persian Gulf are restarting idle wells.

The Wall Street Journal notes, however, that replenishing global oil reserves will take considerably longer. According to the newspaper, the faster nations rebuild their stockpiles, the less leverage Iran will have to pressure the global economy with threats of closing the Strait of Hormuz.

Analysts consulted by the newspaper believe that restoring global inventories could take months, or even years.

Two primary factors are accelerating this replenishment process: falling prices and the emergence of an unexpected supply surplus in the market.

“The sharp increase in oil supply is about to confront a market that, at least for now, does not need this supply,” said Natasha Kaneva, Head of Global Commodities Strategy at JPMorgan.

Rory Johnston, founder of the research firm Commodity Context, described the market’s transition from facing a dangerous supply squeeze to reaching a state of near-abundance as “almost a comical development.”

According to data shared by the newspaper, between 30 and 60 tankers are currently transiting the Strait of Hormuz daily. While this remains lower than pre-war levels, it is sufficient to ease pressure on the global oil market.

Data from energy intelligence firm Vortexa reveals that approximately 140 million barrels of oil were transported through the strait in June, averaging 4.7 million barrels per day.

In May, daily transit volume had fallen to 2 million barrels. Since the beginning of July, oil flows along this route have reached approximately 40% of pre-war benchmarks.

Following the resumption of maritime shipping and liquefied natural gas (LNG) transit through the Strait of Hormuz, the Indian government announced on July 4 that it had lifted LNG supply restrictions imposed on non-essential economic sectors.

Activity in the strait partially recovered following the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran. In early March, amid escalating geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, Brent crude had risen as high as $119.5 per barrel.

Iran has rejected a US proposal to abandon plans to charge transit fees for vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for the partial release of approximately $100 billion in Iranian assets frozen abroad.

According to The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), citing sources familiar with the matter, Tehran turned down the offer.

The report said US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner traveled to Doha, Qatar, this week for talks with Qatari mediators.

The discussions focused on implementing last month’s agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic. Sources said the parties also discussed the latest developments in Lebanon.

Following the negotiations in Qatar, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said the Strait of Hormuz was under “Iran’s command,” not that of the United States.

After his remarks, Iranian military officials warned that any vessel using routes not coordinated with Tehran would face an “immediate and forceful” response.

According to information obtained by the WSJ, Tehran intends to charge all vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz, arguing that the fees are needed to cover the costs of maintaining maritime security.

Iran estimates the mechanism could generate around $40 billion in annual revenue, while the US and Gulf states oppose the proposal.

Seeking an alternative, Oman proposed creating a special fund financed through voluntary contributions from shipping and oil companies.

The fund would have been used to finance security operations in the southern section of the strait. However, according to the newspaper, Iran rejected the initiative because it did not provide for direct payments to Tehran.

In mid-June, the US and Iran signed the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding following months of conflict.

The agreement provides for a ceasefire, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping, the launch of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, the gradual easing of sanctions, and the release of some of Iran’s frozen overseas assets.

Following the agreement, US Central Command (CENTCOM) announced that the US military, acting on Trump’s instructions, had lifted its blockade of all maritime routes leading to Iranian ports and coastal areas.

Iran also reopened the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping but required foreign vessels to provide at least 48 hours’ advance notice before transiting the waterway.

At the end of June, The New York Times, citing an Iranian official, reported that Iran and Oman were developing plans to charge fees for vessels passing through the strait. The US president subsequently said transit through the waterway should remain free.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has denied claims that Beirut is planning to dismiss Lebanese Armed Forces Commander Rodolphe Haykal after a senior Hezbollah official alleged that changes to the military leadership were imminent.

In a statement, the presidency said reports claiming the army commander or other senior security officials would be removed were false, stressing that the country’s security institutions play a fundamental role in maintaining security and upholding state sovereignty.

Aoun also defended the Lebanon-Israel framework agreement reached last month following several rounds of direct talks conducted in violation of Lebanese law.

Referring to the framework agreement negotiated in Washington, Aoun said its provisions reflected the logic of statehood. He added that Lebanon is a sovereign state capable of negotiating on its own behalf and had chosen diplomacy as the best available option after the failure of war.

Nabih Berri, speaker of Lebanon’s parliament and leader of Hezbollah ally the Amal Movement, also addressed reports that Haykal could be dismissed during an interview published on June 29.

Speaking to Al-Akhbar newspaper, Berri said such an idea should not even be raised as a joke and warned against “playing games” with the army.

He added that the military institution represented a red line, describing it as one of the pillars of national stability and the foremost guarantee of domestic peace. Berri also criticized the agreement reached between Beirut and Tel Aviv in Washington.

According to a statement from the Lebanese Armed Forces, Haykal met the commander of the US Central Command (CENTCOM) on Monday to discuss the Beirut-Tel Aviv framework agreement. During the meeting, Haykal thanked the United States for its support and said continued military cooperation was vital to preserving Lebanon’s security and stability.

Senior Hezbollah official Nawaf al-Moussawi had earlier accused President Aoun of attempting to force the army commander from office.

In remarks on June 28, Moussawi said: “The person trying to ignite a civil war in Lebanon is President Joseph Aoun. Aoun is pressuring Haykal to resign, but the commander has refused.” He also said: “I assure our people that the framework agreement signed in Washington between Lebanon and Israel has no value. Therefore, there is no reason for concern.”

Haykal is reported to have refused throughout the past year to advance plans to disarm Hezbollah while Lebanon remained under occupation and attack. He has also reportedly threatened to resign in 2025 over the issue.

Weeks before the latest war began in early March, Haykal visited Washington, where he reportedly drew criticism from US officials after refusing during a meeting to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

Moussawi’s allegations come amid nationwide criticism of the agreement signed with Israel last month. The US-brokered agreement between Lebanon and Israel requires Hezbollah to disarm before Israeli forces withdraw. It also prevents Lebanon from pursuing international legal complaints against Israel over a conflict that, since March this year, has resulted in the deaths of more than 4,000 Lebanese citizens and displaced more than one million people.

The framework agreement has been criticized not only by Hezbollah supporters but also by broader segments of Lebanese society, who view its provisions as an attempt to legitimize Israel’s presence on Lebanese territory.

According to reports in Lebanese media this week, Berri is working to build a broad-based, cross-sectarian political front to oppose the new Lebanon-Israel agreement.

Both Berri and Hezbollah have publicly declared that they will not allow the agreement to take effect. Meanwhile, many in Lebanon fear the country could slide into renewed internal conflict if authorities respond to US calls to pit the Lebanese army against Hezbollah.