Talks between Iran and Oman over the administration of the Strait of Hormuz appear to be moving forward, but the latest proposals offer little indication that commercial shipping will return to the waterway on a full-scale basis in the near term.
On 25 August, Iran and Oman said in a joint statement that they had discussed a phased framework intended to move negotiations forward. The proposal includes the creation of a temporary joint navigation corridor through the Strait of Hormuz, alongside a joint operation to clear mines from the waterway.
The two countries would then continue technical negotiations aimed at establishing a permanent navigation corridor and determining the future administration of the strait. The framework would also cover information-sharing, traffic management, as well as the provision of relevant navigation and security services.
One important issue, however, was left unaddressed: fees and charges for those services. That omission is significant given the US position on freedom of navigation and its opposition to any mechanism that could effectively impose costs on vessels transiting the strait.
Oman’s foreign minister, Sayyid Badr, expressed optimism on X, saying he hoped the two countries would soon announce a temporary corridor and practical measures to restore safe navigation. He added that longer-term management of the strait and a permanent solution would be addressed subsequently.
Statements from Tehran since the joint announcement have provided additional details, while also highlighting the geopolitical difficulties Oman could face in implementing such an arrangement.
Iranian deputy foreign minister for Legal and International Affairs Kazem Gharibabadi said the proposed temporary route would be approximately seven nautical miles wide. He compared it to a highway, with vessels entering the Gulf through Iranian waters to the north and departing through Omani and Iranian waters to the south.
According to Gharibabadi, once the temporary route is agreed, Iran and Oman would have between one and two months to negotiate a permanent corridor.
Despite the apparent progress, Gharibabadi repeatedly stressed that the Strait of Hormuz remains closed and will stay closed until Iran’s conditions are fulfilled.
He also said the agreement would initially involve closing the existing southern route along the Omani coast. Such a move is almost certain to trigger opposition from the US.
Iran has described that southern route as illegal following the collapse of the US-Iran peace agreement in June, while Washington has sought to support and encourage its continued use. Tehran has also repeatedly demonstrated its position by targeting vessels travelling along the southern route with missiles.
The latest joint statement comes after months of discussions between the two coastal states over the waters separating them. Earlier this month, both sides had on several occasions indicated that an agreement could be close.
Even if Tehran and Muscat make further progress, Washington is unlikely to support an arrangement that gives Iran greater control over the Strait of Hormuz.
The sensitivity surrounding the negotiations was underlined on 17 August, when US President Donald Trump threatened to bomb Oman if it obstructed US interests in the strait.
Earlier versions of the Iran-Oman proposals had already faced US objections centred on freedom of navigation. Washington opposed the introduction of fees on vessels transiting Hormuz, regardless of how such charges might be structured or presented.
The US has also rejected joint Iranian-Omani management of parts of the route, as it seeks to restrict Iran’s influence over the strait and maintain unrestricted navigation.
Another point of tension concerns mine clearance. Iran and Oman’s reference to joint mine-clearing operations appears difficult to reconcile with Trump’s recent claims that the Strait of Hormuz has already been completely cleared of mines.
The proposed framework therefore represents a step forward in Iran-Oman discussions, but it does not yet resolve the fundamental dispute over who controls navigation through one of the world’s most strategically important waterways.
