Your Way Home with Hongbin Jeong · 2026-07-09 · 14 min
Key moments - from our scoring
Substance score
60 / 100
Five dimensions, 20 points each
The collapse of the US-Iran ceasefire centers on competing interpretations of the Memorandum of Understanding, particularly regarding who controls shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Dr. James Dorsey, senior fellow at Nanyang Technological University's S. Rajatnam School of International Studies, walks through how Iran reads the agreement as granting it sole authority to manage strait passage, while the US insists on shared management with Oman. The latest cycle - Iranian attacks on commercial tankers followed by US bombing of Iranian military targets, including a railway near Mashad, and Iranian retaliation on US facilities in Bahrain and Kuwait - represents genuine escalation rather than calculated posturing. Trump's threat to reimpose a naval blockade could trigger an Iranian closure of the strait, threatening global oil supplies. Dorsey examines realistic options: prolonged bombing campaigns targeting Iranian infrastructure, or meaningful negotiations requiring US concessions on frozen funds, sanctions relief, and strait management formulas. The deepening distrust between both sides complicates any near-term return to talks, though neither party wants all-out war.
Iran interprets the ceasefire agreement as granting it sole authority to manage shipping through the Strait of Hormuz under its own rules, while the US argues Iran doesn't have exclusive control since the strait comprises both Iranian and Omani territorial waters, giving both countries legal rights to manage their sections.
Yes, according to Dr. Dorsey, a US naval blockade without question would lead to Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz entirely in response.
The US targeted sites across multiple Iranian cities and inland infrastructure, including a critical railway linking Tehran to Mashad, not just Gulf-region military targets, representing a significant expansion in scope and geography.
The US would need to concede on Strait of Hormuz management (possibly through shared management with Oman), release frozen Iranian funds, and lift reimposed oil sanctions, while Iran would need to accept less than sole control of the strait.
It would set a dangerous precedent for natural waterways; voices in Indonesia have already called for fees on the Strait of Malacca, which could increase shipping costs for countries like Singapore that depend on these routes.
Our reviewer’s read on each dimension, with quotes from the episode.
The episode provides substantive context on the Iran-US tensions, particularly useful detail on the Strait of Hormuz management dispute and its broader economic implications. However, it relies heavily on Dr. Dorsey's interpretations without introducing competing frameworks or granular data; much of the analysis restates known positions (escalation as negotiating tactic, geopolitical risk to oil markets) rather than surfacing novel insights a B2B operator wouldn't encounter in standard financial press.
The problem essentially is that if you go back to the days before the Memorandum of Understanding was sign what the mediators were telling us that it was all about wording. And if you look at the Memorandum of Understanding, it really is a text that is multi interpretable if you wish, in which the substantive issues are not outlined, but they're not clearly defined, nor is the solution to them clearly defined.
The reason for that is that Iran believes that Trump is deliberately trying to undermine Iran's negotiating position in the talks, and therefore it's going to try and defend itself against that.
The framing of escalation-as-negotiation tactic is familiar geopolitical analysis circulating widely in financial media and think tanks. The specific insight about the railway strike disrupting Iranian export circumvention offers some novelty, but overall the episode follows conventional frameworks (credible commitment, signaling, BATNA analysis) without introducing genuinely contrarian or first-principles thinking about how this conflict might resolve differently than past cycles.
Well, that's definitely what they would like to see happen. Whether that is what happens is a different question. Escalation is already taking place. If you look closely at the sites that the United States bombed last night, then you see the escalation.
A railway was struck in the northeastern part of Iran. That's a crucial railway that links, uh, Tehran, the Iranian capital, with the city of Mashad, where the, uh, late supreme Guide Ali Khamenei is being buried today. Uh, and that disrupts Iranian attempts, uh, to be able to circumvent the Strait of Hormuz for their own exports.
Dr. James Dorsey is a credentialed fellow at a respected institution (Nanyang Technological University) with clear expertise in Middle East geopolitics and regional dynamics. However, he is primarily an academic analyst and think-tank fellow, not an operator or practitioner who has managed large-scale infrastructure, negotiated treaties, or run organizations affected by these conflicts. This limits direct practitioner insight despite his genuine subject-matter expertise.
Dr. James Dorsey, a Junk senior fellow at Nangyang Technological University's S. Rajatnam um, School of International Studies.
Negotiations. That is to say, Iran accepting US Terms as Trump defines it is Trump's preference. That is not to say that he doesn't see bombing Iran. Iranian infrastructure and trying to cripple Iran is not something that he's not entertaining.
The episode includes some concrete details: oil prices surged 7%, the railway linking Tehran to Mashad was struck, Iran attacked an early warning station in Qatar for the first time in three months, and discussion of potential fee structures for the Strait of Hormuz. However, much analysis remains vague (e.g., 'proloned bombing campaign' without estimates of cost or duration, 'global energy markets will feel the pinch' without quantification, no specific dollar figures on frozen funds or sanctions cost).
Oil prices have already flared up by around 7%. Will petrol prices and utility bills spike once again?
A railway was struck in the northeastern part of Iran. That's a crucial railway that links, uh, Tehran, the Iranian capital, with the city of Mashad, where the, uh, late supreme Guide Ali Khamenei is being buried today.
The host asks coherent follow-up questions that build logically (ceasefire status → severity → Strait of Hormuz implications → economic impact → escalation dynamics → resolution path). However, the interview lacks productive pushback or challenges to Dr. Dorsey's assertions. The host does not probe soft spots (e.g., 'your guess is as good as mine' on timing should prompt deeper questioning about what signals matter), nor does he introduce alternative viewpoints or press on contradictions.
Well then how severe is the fighting at the moment between Iran and the U.S. i mean, this is a
I mean, rather than a breakdown, could this repetition be something more calculated, you know, a script both sides use to stake out leverage before returning to the table?
Computed from the transcript - who did the talking, and the words that came up most.
The fragile ceasefire between the US and Iran appears to be hanging by a thread. After fresh fighting erupted and Iranian attacks targeted commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz, US President Donald Trump declared the agreement "over" and warned that American bombings would "get much worse" if Tehran failed to back down. The latest exchange has seen US strikes on Iranian military targets met with retaliatory attacks on American military facilities in Bahrain and Kuwait, raising fears of a wider regional conflict. Are the two sides heading back to open conflict, or is this the latest round of brinkmanship before diplomacy resumes? On The Big Story, Hongbin Jeong and Dr James Dorsey, Adjunct Senior Fellow at Nanyang Technological University's S Rajaratnam School of International Studies , unpack what the latest escalation means for the Middle East, the global economy, and whether there's still any path back to peace. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Transcribed and scored by The B2B Podcast Index.
Speaker A: Best of your way home with Hong Bin Jeong. When the headlines move fast, we slow them down. The BIG Story. Clarity, context, and what it means for you. Only on Money FM 89.3. Welcome to the Big Story. I'm Hong Bae Jung. The ceasefire agreement between the US and Iran is over. That's according to US President Donald Trump after fresh fighting erupted following Iranian attacks on commercial ships in the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz. He's even warned that US Bombings will get much worse if Iran doesn't halt attacks. The latest exchange saw the United States launch strikes on Iranian military targets, with Tehran retaliating by targeting US Military facilities in Bahrain and Kuwait. While Trump says he'll allow negotiators to keep talking, he's made it clear he has little confidence that diplomacy will succeed. The renewed violence has already rattled global markets. Oil prices have surged. Commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz is once again under threat. And experts warn Trump may be playing with economic fire by calling the peace deal with Iran over. So has the ceasefire effectively collapsed? Are we back to square one? Is this a rupture or another round of pressure ahead of a return to the table? Joining us now to unpack the latest developments is Dr. James Dorsey, a Junk senior fellow at Nangyang Technological University's S. Rajatnam um, School of International Studies. Hi, Dr. Dorsey, welcome to the show.
Speaker B: Hong Bin, always a pleasure to be with you.
Speaker A: Thank you so much for joining us once again. Well, Dr. Dorsey, just to start off here, is it fair to say the ceasefire has effectively collapsed? Are we back to square one?
Speaker B: It's on life support. It hasn't quite collapsed yet. Now, that doesn't mean that we're not back to square one in the sense that this is really becoming a question of who blinks first. And that is a perilous moment because it leaves a lot of room for escalation.
Speaker A: Okay, well then how severe is the fighting at the moment between Iran and the U.S. i mean, this is a
Speaker B: severe crisis in which it's very difficult to see how both parties are going to back down. The problem essentially is that if you go back to the days before the Memorandum of Understanding was sign what the mediators were telling us that it was all about wording. And if you look at the Memorandum of Understanding, it really is a text that is multi interpretable if you wish, in which the substantive issues are not outlined, but they're not clearly defined, nor is the solution to them clearly defined. And as a result, you have a document that is being read Very differently, on the one hand by the United States and on the other hand by Iran.
Speaker A: Definitely. So for some context here, what's at uh, the heart of the latest military exchanges between Iran and the US at
Speaker B: the heart is control of the Strait of Hormuz. So if you look at this Memorandum of Understanding, what it says, quote unquote, Iran will make arrangements for the safe passage of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranians read that as they having sole authority to arrange shipping through the Strait of Horuz and rules that they establish. The text doesn't say soul management. And so the Americans basically say you don't have soul control. You get into a very complicated situation because for all practical matters, the Strait of Hormuz is part Iranian territorial water, part Omani territorial water. So legally both countries have a right to, to manage shipping through their territorial waters. For all practical matters, Iran denies Oman that right.
Speaker A: We'll dive more into the Strait of Hormuz in just a bit. But it does seem there are some gray areas from the start of this mou. Now, Trump did not explicitly say Washington would return to full fledged war with Iran. Does that give any relief though, Dr. Dorsey? Or do you see tensions continue to flare up for further in the next couple of days?
Speaker B: The problem here is that neither Trump or the United States or Iran really want a return to an all out war.
Speaker A: Okay.
Speaker B: However, without some sort of compromise on the part of Iran and the United States with regard to the straight of Hormuz, it's hard to see how you're going to stop this vicious cycle of violence. If you wish.
Speaker A: I mean, much of this latest escalation centers around the Strait of Hormuz, as you've mentioned earlier in our conversation, where, you know, Iran has struck, struck several ships transiting Hormuz in recent days, accusing them of not following its authorized route. So what's the status of the Strait of Hormuz at the moment? I mean, will there be another full scale interruption of shipping traffic through the Strait?
Speaker B: It's not inconceivable. While in Ankara at the NATO summit this week, uh, Trump held out the possibility of a reinstatement of the US Naval blockade of Iranian ports. Now he's already reimposed sanctions on, uh, Iranian oil exports. A reimposition of the US Naval blockade without doubt would lead to a closure by Iran of the strait.
Speaker A: Well, if there is another closure of the Strait, will this be another big blow to the global economy as well?
Speaker B: I think there's no doubt now there is at the moment, an oil glut on the global energy market. So the effect may be initially psychological, more than substantial, but it's not. It won't be very long before global energy markets start feeling the pinch of the loss of the flow of oil and gas through the Strait of Hormuz.
Speaker A: Oil prices have already flared up by around 7%. Will petrol prices and utility bills spike once again?
Speaker B: Depending on what happens? Without doubt. With other words, if you get, uh, an all out war, or if you get a closure, a full closure of the Strait, of a move both by the Americans and by the Iranians, then I have no doubt that oil prices will shoot up and you'll feel that at the gasoline pump.
Speaker A: Well, Dr. Dorsey, I mean, this week's exchange of fire in the Gulf followed a familiar pattern. You know, Iranian attacks on commercial tankers, US Retaliation, then Iranian strikes on American positions in Bahrain and Kuwait. I mean, it's the second time in weeks this cycle has unfolded. So rather than a breakdown, could this repetition be something more calculated, you know, a script both sides use to stake out leverage before returning to the table? I mean, in other words, are the US And Iran escalating to negotiate?
Speaker B: Well, that's definitely what they would like to see happen. Whether that is what happens is a different question. Escalation is already taking place. If you look closely at the sites that the United States bombed last night, then you see the escalation. You see the escalation both in the number of targets, the scope, the number of cities that were attacked, and perhaps most importantly, uh, that the strikes were not exclusively on, uh, targets along the Gulf or along the Strait of Hormuz. A railway was struck in the northeastern part of Iran. That's a crucial railway that links, uh, Tehran, the Iranian capital, with the city of Mashad, where the, uh, late supreme Guide Ali Khamenei is being buried today. Uh, and that disrupts Iranian attempts, uh, to be able to circumvent the Strait of Hormuz for their own exports. If the US Naval blockade were to
Speaker A: be reimposed and buried in Trump's latest verbal onslaught was also an acceptance that the talks will continue. So could this be read as another admission that Trump, you know, for all his bluster, does not have a better option than negotiations.
Speaker B: Negotiations. That is to say, Iran accepting US Terms as Trump defines it is Trump's preference. That is not to say that he doesn't see bombing Iran. Iranian infrastructure and trying to cripple Iran is not something that he's not entertaining. If his negotiation strategy doesn't work.
Speaker A: But what options does Washington realistically have from here?
Speaker B: Prolonged bombing campaign that, uh, fundamentally damages Iranian energy infrastructure, transport infrastructure, electricity grids, oil export facilities. Uh, that's what the most realistic option is. The other options are probably less palatable to Trump, which would have to involve the introduction of ground troops.
Speaker A: And what would each side, both Iran and the US need to concede before talks could, you know, resume meaningfully at this point?
Speaker B: Well, I think at this point it's going to be difficult or more difficult to get the talks back on track. The reason being that, without question, Iran is going to be firmer in its demands at certain parts of the Memorandum of Understanding with regard to the Strait of Hormuz, with regard to the release of Iranian frozen funds, the lifting of sanctions that it believes should have already been implemented. And so Iran will be firmer in those, in those demands. The reason for that is that Iran believes that Trump is deliberately trying to undermine Iran's negotiating position in the talks, and therefore it's going to try and defend itself against that. On the other hand, the Americans would have to make certain concessions with regard to the Strait of Hormuz, and there are formulas for that. For example, that Iran shares management of the Strait with Oman or another Gulf state, even if it sets the rules for that. And the United States would have to make a move on the release of funds and lift the reimposition of the oil sanctions.
Speaker A: I believe experts are saying that we are now in a sensitive period where potential alternatives to an Iranian toll fee system are being explored, adding that Iran is sending a clear signal that no alternative will be accepted here. What's the likelihood of the US Giving in at this point? Is there a real possibility that Iran will monetize the Strait of Hormuz?
Speaker B: Well, there's, uh, all kinds of formulas being floated around. Iran has already backed away from the notion of tolls and has spoken about, uh, fees for management or for the securing of ship through the strait. Environmental concerns. One of the differences between Iran and the Omanis, who are the other Strait of Hormuz literal state, is that the Omanis are suggesting that those fees be voluntary, whereas Iran wishes them to be, uh, mandatory. But that leaves some room. Should there be a consensus that the United States could buy into.
Speaker A: Well, if there are such fees, what would that mean for the rest of the world, including Singapore?
Speaker B: Well, what it means is it obviously increases, uh, the price of the cost of transportation, but it also sets a precedent. The difference here being in comparison to, for example, the, uh, Suez Canal or the Panama Canal. Those are not by definition international waters which the Strait of Hormuz is defined as. And they are man made waterways. They're not natural waterways, but it would set a precedent for natural waterways. Think of the Strait of Malacca. You've already had voices in Indonesia, for example, that have called for fees being, uh, being uh, raised for shipping through the Strait of Malacca.
Speaker A: And at this point, Dr. Dorsey, we have to ask, how much longer do you expect this war to last? I mean, will we see the US And Iran back on the negotiating table soon? And if they return, will the rest of the world have low expectations given their constant back and forth?
Speaker B: Well, your guess is as good as mine in terms of timing. I don't think that anybody can predict that. I mean, one option is that you get a sustained no war, no peace situation, in which case this could last a fairly long time. Now, I'm not saying that that's the most likely scenario, but nonetheless, it is a scenario. What all of this in the recent days has done, it's seriously deepened the distrust that the United States has of Iran and Iran of the United States. And that distrust complicates negotiations.
Speaker A: Then what are the key developments you'll be watching over the next few days?
Speaker B: I think the most immediate one is how Iran responds to the most recent attacks. We've already seen an escalation earlier today with the Iranians attacking not only Bahrain and Kuwait, as they have done most recently, but also for the first time in three months, an early warning station in Qatar.
Speaker A: All right, some great insights from you there. As always, thank you so much, Dr. Dorsey, for joining us today.
Speaker B: Thank you for having me. It's always a pleasure.
Speaker A: Thank you so much. That was Dr. James Dorsey, a junk senior fellow at Nanyang Technological University's S Rajatima School of International Studies. This has been the big story with me, Hong Bin Jeong. For more conversations and podcasts, visit Money FM893SG M.
Other episodes covering the same guests and topics, from across The B2B Podcast Index.
Why Oil Tankers Still Are Not Returning to the Strait of HormuzOil Ground Up · on Strait of Hormuz96 / 100
How many wake up calls does Europe need?Plugged In: the energy news podcast · on Strait of Hormuz95 / 100
Investing in Maritime Domain Awareness in a Changing World - Simon Tucker of SRT MarineIn the Company of Mavericks · on Strait of Hormuz91 / 100
Uneven Demand, Tight Supply: Navigating the Next Procurement ChallengeThe Decisive Podcast · on Strait of Hormuz85 / 100
Talking Supply Chain: The Strait of Hormuz is open, but normal is not nearSupply Chain Management Review Podcast Network · on Strait of Hormuz78 / 100
No silver bullet for dovesThe Currency Exchange · on Strait of Hormuz78 / 100
The Big Story: Oil is back above US$100. What does it mean for Singaporeans?80 / 100
The Agenda: More than retirees... Are Singapore’s seniors an untapped resource?
What's Trending: Gossip for sale? This woman says selling neighbourhood secrets bought her two houses
Under the Radar: (SPECIALS) How is Polar Puff & Cakes spicing up the business as it celebrates 100 years of operations? Its Executive Chairman spills the curry puff flakes.
The Big Story: Singapore’s political salaries are going up... but will that attract better leaders?