US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a CNBC interview on August 4, 2026 that the United States and Iran could reach a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz "today or tomorrow" — meaning Tuesday or Wednesday — with "freedom of movement" through the waterway. CNBC

As of August 4, no final deal had been reached. ABC News Bessent's comments, reported across multiple outlets including the New York Post and Forbes, amount to a signal that negotiations are in an advanced stage, not a confirmation that an agreement is signed.

This is not the first time in 2026 that a Hormuz reopening has appeared imminent. On June 14, global stocks rose and oil prices slid after President Trump said an Iran deal had been signed. Reuters That agreement was expected to reopen the blockaded strait and extend a ceasefire for 60 days. The next day, US energy shares slumped as the deal lowered the perceived risk of supply disruption, sending oil prices lower. Reuters Reuters noted at the time that the deal offered relief to oil markets, though risks around Hormuz remained. Reuters

The fact that Bessent is again signaling an imminent deal roughly seven weeks after the June agreement suggests the earlier arrangement either failed to hold or did not fully restore navigation through the strait. The Treasury Secretary's specific language about "freedom of movement" implies the prospective deal would go beyond a ceasefire framework to restore commercial transit guarantees through a chokepoint that carries roughly a fifth of global oil supply.

The backdrop to these negotiations has been an escalating US sanctions campaign against Iran's oil revenue infrastructure. On July 29, the Treasury took action against multiple shadow fleet vessels responsible for transporting millions of barrels of Iranian crude, framing the move as disruption of the Iranian regime's Strait of Hormuz activities. US Treasury Earlier, on July 10, Treasury identified that Lavasani Exchange held hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of foreign currency on behalf of its sanctioned Iranian bank. US Treasury

The sanctions pressure has been sustained across multiple fronts. In May, Bessent said the "Economic Fury" sanctions campaign had left the Iranian regime "desperate for cash." US Treasury In the same month, he said the Treasury had deprived the regime of revenue for its weapons programs, terrorist proxies, and nuclear ambitions. US Treasury In January, Bessent announced sanctions against architects of Iran's crackdown on peaceful protests. US Treasury

The pattern is familiar to oil market participants: maximal sanctions pressure on Iranian oil revenue, followed by signals of a diplomatic breakthrough, followed by fragile or partial implementation. The June episode produced a clear market reaction — equities up, crude down, energy equities sold off — only for the situation to evidently require another round of negotiation. Traders and risk managers will be weighing whether Bessent's August 4 comments warrant repositioning or whether the June precedent argues for caution until a signed agreement is confirmed.

Several factors will determine the market reaction if a deal materializes this week. The scope of "freedom of movement" matters: a deal that restores full commercial transit through Hormuz would directly ease supply-side risk premia in Brent and WTI. The durability of the arrangement matters equally. The June deal's 60-day ceasefire window was always a temporary framework, and any new agreement will be scrutinized for whether it includes longer-term enforcement or verification mechanisms. Treasury's concurrent actions against shadow fleet vessels suggest the sanctions architecture remains in place even as diplomatic channels open, which could mean the deal is less a lifting of pressure and more a reconfiguration of it.

For energy-equity investors, the June playbook is instructive: downstream and integrated majors sold off on falling crude, while any sustained Hormuz reopening would also affect tanker rates, insurance premiums, and Gulf LNG shipping costs. For fixed-income markets, the oil price implications feed directly into inflation expectations and, by extension, the rate path. A durable drop in oil would reinforce disinflationary trends; a failed deal would restore the geopolitical risk premium that has intermittently pressured breakevens higher.

Bessent's choice of a live CNBC interview to signal the timeline is itself notable. It suggests the administration wants market participants to price in the likelihood of a deal before any formal announcement, potentially to dampen volatility around confirmation. Whether that calculation holds depends entirely on whether Tehran signs on in the window Bessent identified.