In the ever-turbulent waters of international relations, recent developments between Iran and Oman regarding the Strait of Hormuz have raised eyebrows. As tensions linger in the region, the implications for maritime operations and energy markets remain significant.
Recently, I found myself contemplating the timing of Iran’s advancing discussions with Oman on managing the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has emphasized that these talks are independent of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) set to expire at the end of this month. In the meantime, the Trump administration has seized this situation to spread misleading narratives while attempting to drive down oil prices further. One often-cited claim suggested that Iranian-Omani agreements would swiftly reopen the Strait. However, Iran has clarified that any normalization of maritime traffic requires the US to fulfill the terms of the MOU, as well as additional, yet unspecified conditions. The prevailing stance is that fulfilling the MOU provisions is a necessary—but not sufficient—step forward. Furthermore, claims of US-Iran negotiations have been categorically refuted by Iran.
A draft list of proposed terms from Iran on managing traffic through the Strait of Hormuz starkly contrasts US expectations and market assumptions. Iran intends to maintain strict control over the Strait, leveraging access as a means to secure reparations for wartime damages. This vision stands in stark opposition to US demands and financial market hopes for a return to unabated transit or minimal fees.
For further details, here are some initial arrangements reported by Fars News via Sprinter Press on Twitter:
The Iranian news agency “Fars” has disclosed information regarding the current accords between Iran and Oman concerning the passage of vessels through the Strait of Hormuz:
According to the overarching negotiation framework, vessels will enter the Strait via the northern route and exit through the southern route, adjacent to Oman’s coast.
After an agreed-upon timeframe, ship traffic will be restricted to the central passage. However, Iran will oversee the entry of vessels, while their exit will be jointly managed with Oman.
Fees for passage will vary, determined by the services rendered. These charges will include costs for insurance, refueling, environmental protection, and other services necessary for transiting through the Strait.
The need for both Iran and Oman to maintain transit before moving to unify the route suggests that Iran may need to clear mines from previously used channels.
Additionally, it’s essential to note that no US vessels, including those of the Navy or contractors attempting to enter the Gulf with equipment for restoring bases, will be allowed passage through the Strait. The 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) recognizes “transit passage” for all vessels, including military ships, through international straits like Hormuz.1
Reuters, referencing a single unnamed Iranian official, reported that Iran is proposing fees between 5% to 7%. Historically, Reuters has been known to circulate dubious stories, and this particular assertion could dangerously skew perceptions of the new management policy by publicizing exorbitant fee levels.
The draft legislative text states that all vessels must pay a fee. It’s worth mentioning that UNCLOS prohibits discriminatory fee practices, which means charging one country differently than another. Oman appears to be striving for compliance with UNCLOS, potentially imposing environmental and service fees permissible under the treaty. The potential for significant environmental fees for tankers is quite credible.
Here are some brief insights:
‼️ Far from being submissive to US demands, Iran is dictating harsher terms than ever before. https://t.co/8rTLlNhIih
— Will Schryver (@imetatronink) August 6, 2026
Mario Nawfal discusses the rumors surrounding the Strait of Hormuz “deal” and its potential fees with Douglas Macgregor in a recent talk. They ponder the possible actions the US might take in reaction. Nawfal warns that a significant bombing campaign could precipitate economic collapse through retaliation on vital energy infrastructure. Macgregor elaborates, suggesting that Trump’s responses in this conflict have lacked rationality and that a more aggressive stance could be on the horizon.
Sal Mercogliano offers a brief analysis from the shipping industry’s perspective. He acknowledges that Iran-Oman joint control might be perceived as a more viable option. However, he reiterates the resistance from operators and insurers against the emergence of a new Iranian-Omani protocol, with Lloyd’s of London particularly refusing to provide war insurance to vessels that pay fees to Iran.
Disappointingly, Al Jazeera is still amplifying the administration’s optimistic rhetoric:
From the top of its live feed:
- US President Donald Trump anticipates a swift conclusion to the war on Iran, indicating it cannot extend much longer.
- The US, Iran, and Oman are nearing a temporary agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
It is essential to recognize the misrepresentation at play. The purported agreement does not entail a full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz; rather, it sets preconditions for a significant resumption of maritime activity. Iran has consistently asserted that the US must fulfill its MOU commitments and more.
The Wall Street Journal’s article exemplifies exaggerated optimism regarding US-Iran relations. Its only substantial report on the Iran war is titled Can Iran’s Diminished Diplomats Deliver a Hormuz Deal?. Within the article, mediators express concerns that Iran’s diplomats lack the authority to ensure compliance with any agreement, especially under the scrutiny of hard-liners in Tehran.
Mediators conveyed that Arab negotiation efforts have widened from merely facilitating concise transit through the Strait to addressing financial relief measures previously outlined in the now-suspended June MOU. This includes sanctions waivers permitting Iran to sell oil and access frozen funds.
Iran has repeatedly asserted that no agreement will be finalized until all terms are settled. Why would Iran make concessions on its most significant leverage before securing a broader agreement?
As such, it will be intriguing to see how Iranian commentators respond to these developments, especially as their narratives often clash with Western perspectives. Recently, Al Jazeera reported that Iran has received “positive” messages from the US, yet officials insist their primary focus is on securing a bilateral agreement with Oman.
Iranian official signals ‘positive’ messages received from the US
According to journalist Wesam Bahrani in Tehran, amid reports of dwindling US interceptor supplies, the queries about the status of negotiations with Iran have resurfaced.
“The answer came from Deputy Foreign Minister Kerem Gharibabadi, who confirmed that Iran has received some positive messages from the US, although he withheld specific details,” Bahrani reported. “For Iran, it is crucial to finalize bilateral negotiations with Oman before addressing US interests.”
In light of ongoing tensions, both the US and Iran have highlighted distinct and divergent communications about the Strait of Hormuz negotiations. Recent reports reveal that vessel traffic through the Strait has significantly diminished, and essential demand from Chinese and Indian refiners remains evident.
Vessel transit through the Strait of Hormuz has decreased to just 33 vessels between Monday and Thursday, compared to 50 during the previous week. Surveillance data reveals that only four ships crossed the Strait on Thursday, with one being a very large crude carrier. Just six crude oil tankers slipped through this week, while 21 vessels entered via Iranian routes.
Furthermore, HFI Research is expressing dwindling patience regarding the prevailing narrative around the Strait of Hormuz.
In the past 24 hours concerning the Strait: Where’s the deal? The anticipated deal seems more elusive than ever, seeing as the optimistic timeline proposed initially has long since passed.
The dialogue around what constitutes a genuine agreement remains contentious. While some Iranian reports claim there is no deal on the table, the ongoing inability of the US to enforce its proposed terms is evident.
In closing, navigating the geopolitical landscape surrounding the Strait of Hormuz is complex, especially given the competing narratives from both Iran and the US. As developments unfold, the global energy sector will undoubtedly keep a close eye on these negotiations and their ramifications for maritime security.
1 To contrast, the Strait is classified as an international strait under UNCLOS, which establishes the legal framework for rapid, uninterrupted passage of all maritime vessels, military and commercial, through this critical waterway. Iran has signed but not ratified UNCLOS and seeks to enforce a regime termed “innocent passage,” which could potentially restrict military vessels and those from nations deemed hostile.
