The statement from Seoul followed a call by US President Donald Trump urging South Korea to participate in efforts to escort commercial shipping through the waterway, a critical route for global energy supplies.

South Korea’s defense ministry said it would “carefully review our position” without committing to any deployment, adding that its decision would take into account international law, maritime safety, the alliance with the United States, and security conditions on the Korean Peninsula.

An explosion and fire were reported on Monday aboard the Panama-flagged cargo ship HMM Namu while it was anchored near the United Arab Emirates within the strait. All 24 crew members, including six South Korean nationals, were unharmed, according to the foreign ministry.

The cause of the incident remains under investigation, with South Korean authorities saying the extent of the damage will be assessed after the vessel is secured.

Trump said the incifent should prompt Seoul to join US efforts, suggesting the vessel may have come under Iranian fire, although this has not been independently confirmed.The Strait of Hormuz has seen sharply reduced shipping activity since late February due to ongoing hostilities involving Iran, effectively disrupting a key artery for oil exports.

The United States has launched a naval initiative aimed at guiding stranded vessels through the area, amid reports of repeated maritime incidents and exchanges between US and Iranian forces.

South Korea, which depends heavily on Middle Eastern energy imports, said it is participating in international discussions on ensuring safe passage through the strait. Officials also emphasized that any decision on involvement would reflect broader strategic and legal considerations, including domestic procedures.

The incident highlights growing risks to commercial shipping in the region, as governments weigh responses to protect trade routes while avoiding deeper military entanglement in the conflict.

Iran and the United States have agreed to a conditional two-week ceasefire, marking a temporary pause in hostilities that have disrupted regional stability and threatened global energy supply routes, according to statements from officials in both countries and mediators involved in the talks.

The agreement provides for an immediate halt to attacks and the reopening of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical corridor for global oil shipments. Iranian authorities said safe passage would be coordinated with their armed forces during the ceasefire period, indicating continued operational control over the waterway.

The announcement was confirmed by Shehbaz Sharif, who said the ceasefire would apply “everywhere including Lebanon and elsewhere” and take effect immediately. Sharif also invited both sides to send delegations to Islamabad for talks aimed at reaching a longer-term settlement, positioning Pakistan as a key mediator in the process.

Officials in Washington and Tehran offered differing emphases on the agreement. Donald Trump described the ceasefire as a “total and complete victory” for the United States, stating that US military objectives had been achieved and that discussions toward a broader peace arrangement were already advanced. He added that Washington would suspend further military action, including previously stated threats against Iranian civilian infrastructure, contingent on compliance with the terms of the agreement.

Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi confirmed that Tehran would halt what he described as “defensive operations” to facilitate negotiations. He said Iran had submitted a 10-point proposal that Washington had accepted as the basis for talks, while also reviewing a separate 15-point proposal put forward by the United States.

Despite these developments, there were inconsistencies in how the ceasefire’s geographic scope was described. Benjamin Netanyahu stated that the agreement did not extend to Lebanon, contradicting assertions by Pakistani officials and some US sources that the ceasefire would apply across multiple fronts. The discrepancy highlights ongoing uncertainty over the terms and implementation of the arrangement.

No official text of either proposal has been publicly released. However, details reported by Iranian state media suggest that Tehran’s 10-point plan includes provisions for maintaining its authority over the Strait of Hormuz, securing the lifting of sanctions, unfreezing overseas assets, and obtaining compensation for damages.

The proposal is also reported to call for the withdrawal of US forces from the region, recognition of Iran’s nuclear enrichment activities, and a binding United Nations resolution to formalize any final agreement.

Iranian diplomatic messaging has reinforced these positions, emphasizing continued control over strategic waterways and a cessation of hostilities across multiple regional theaters. Tehran has also indicated that any lasting agreement would need to address broader geopolitical and economic demands, including sanctions relief and security guarantees.

By contrast, the US proposal is reported by regional sources cited by CNN to focus on nuclear and security constraints. The 15-point framework is believed to include commitments by Iran to forgo nuclear weapons development, surrender highly enriched uranium, limit its defense capabilities, and curtail support for regional proxy groups. It also includes provisions to ensure the continued operation of the Strait of Hormuz as an open international shipping route.

Iran has previously rejected these terms, describing them as “excessive, unrealistic and unreasonable,” suggesting that significant gaps remain between the two sides despite the temporary ceasefire.The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz is a central component of the agreement, given its importance to global energy markets.

Any disruption to shipping through the waterway has immediate implications for oil prices and supply chains, making the ceasefire’s maritime provisions a key focus for international stakeholders.

The two-week timeframe underscores the provisional nature of the arrangement, with both sides framing the ceasefire as an opportunity to advance negotiations rather than a definitive resolution. Diplomatic engagement is expected to intensify in the coming days, particularly with the proposed talks in Islamabad.

While the agreement signals a de-escalation after a period of heightened tensions, the absence of a publicly verified framework and conflicting statements from key actors point to a fragile understanding that will depend on sustained diplomatic coordination and adherence to interim commitments.