The United States, Iran, and Oman appear to be edging closer to an interim agreement that could reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a vital maritime artery through which one-fifth of the world’s oil supply typically flows. The proposed agreement, which has been under negotiation for several weeks, is intended to restore the June 17 ceasefire between Washington and Tehran and resolve disputes over shipping through the strategic waterway.
US President Donald Trump struck an optimistic tone on Tuesday evening, telling reporters that negotiations with Iran were “moving along very nicely.” When asked if a deal was imminent, Trump responded, “We’ll find out. We’ll know in 48 hours.” He added a stern warning regarding the status of the strait: “The strait is going to be open very soon, or they’re going to get hit very hard, and then the strait is going to be open.”
Trump’s comments followed reports that he had decided over the weekend against carrying out military strikes he had previously threatened. Iran, meanwhile, continues to deny holding direct talks with Washington. Its officials have consistently insisted that discussions are taking place exclusively with Oman regarding the management of the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei described the Oman-led talks as “positive” and noted they are continuing, though Iran’s Sepah News quoted an official as saying that US military threats remain the primary obstacle to a final agreement.
The diplomatic push arrives as tensions remain high in and around the Strait of Hormuz. Commercial traffic through the waterway remains heavily disrupted; only eight vessels transited the strait on Monday, a stark decline from the roughly 130 ships per day that navigated the route before the US-Israel war on Iran erupted on February 28. Against this backdrop, mediators are racing to secure a temporary agreement before the situation escalates further.
The negotiations center on two fundamental questions: who controls the Strait of Hormuz and whether Iran should be permitted to regulate or tax transit. The dispute began after the US and Israel launched their war on Iran, prompting Tehran to restrict access to the waterway. When Iran later reopened parts of the strait, it ordered commercial ships to utilize a northern shipping lane within its territorial waters. Following a ceasefire in April, Washington proposed that ships instead use a southern route along the coast of Oman to avoid Iranian interference.
Mediators are now attempting to broker a compromise that allows commercial shipping to resume while addressing the security concerns of all parties. The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman stated that the talks with Oman are focused on “establishing safe inbound and outbound shipping lanes” that “uphold sovereign rights while also addressing the national security considerations of both Iran and Oman.” Baghaei noted that the discussions have been assessed positively at both political and technical levels, although significant differences remain regarding operational mechanics.
Iranian officials have indicated that outstanding issues include the specific mechanism for reopening the waterway, the implementation of maritime service fees, and broader security arrangements. Tehran continues to insist it is negotiating only with Oman, not directly with Washington, maintaining that Iran and Oman should jointly manage the strait according to their respective territorial waters and retain control of navigation therein.
Furthermore, Iran has signaled plans to introduce a fee system for ships. Under this proposal, vessels would pay for transit, a move the US administration strongly opposes. US officials stated that the Trump administration demands total freedom of commercial navigation through the waterway without Iranian tolls or any arrangement requiring ships to obtain Tehran’s approval before transiting. Trump himself rejected the notion of Iranian tolls on Monday, stating, “I’m not going to let them charge. Anybody’s going to charge, we’ll charge.”
David Des Roches, a security analyst, suggested that a compromise might involve Iran conceding on free passage in international waters while maintaining some authority within its own territorial zones. “I think that the rough outlines of a deal are that Iran would deny free international passage in areas of its territorial waters,” Des Roches said. “I think that’s probably about the best that can be reached at this point in time.”
Abas Aslani, a senior research fellow at the Center for Middle East Strategic Studies, told Al Jazeera that the rapid swings between military escalation and diplomacy have left the region in a state of deep uncertainty. “Everybody was bracing for a massive escalation,” Aslani noted. He added that while an agreement over Hormuz would be “a good start,” it would not “magically solve all the issues.” Instead, it could allow both sides to return to implementing the June Memorandum of Understanding before working toward a final agreement on the nuclear issue.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has suggested that the Hormuz negotiations are currently being treated as separate from wider regional conflicts. “The immediate deal and the one that you’ve seen a lot of focus on is the straits,” Rubio said. Despite the Trump administration’s hardline public rhetoric, the focus remains on stabilizing the flow of energy and goods through the strait to prevent a global economic shock.
As the 48-hour window mentioned by President Trump closes, the international community watches closely to see if the Omani mediation can bridge the gap between Tehran’s desire for sovereign control and Washington’s insistence on unhindered international passage. The outcome of these talks will likely dictate the immediate future of maritime security in the Persian Gulf and determine whether the current ceasefire holds or collapses into renewed hostilities.
On Tuesday, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) agency reported a cargo ship had been struck by an unidentified projectile off Oman.
The situation has raised concerns that prolonged disruptions could send oil prices sharply higher.
The US later imposed a naval blockade on Iranian ports in an effort to increase economic pressure on Tehran, which was still managing to export its own oil via the strait.
Below is the route map that Iran issued to ships it gave permission to pass during the war.
Under international maritime law, tolls for passage cannot be levied on international straits such as Hormuz but coastal states may charge for services they provide, such as navigational assistance, pilotage and environmental protection.
The arrangement would initially last 60 days, during which no transit fees would be charged, Axios reported.
It remained unclear if the US would be willing to accept this.
One proposal put forward earlier by Oman is reportedly based on operations in the Strait of Malacca, which connects the Indian and Pacific Oceans.
There, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore ask ships that use the strait to voluntarily help fund navigation, environmental protection, and search and rescue operations.
Negotiators are also discussing the clearance of naval mines from the centre of the strait before seeking a longer-term agreement on how the waterway should operate, Axios reported.
The Reuters news agency, quoting a senior Iranian source involved in the negotiations, reported that Tehran has already dropped its original demand for full control over shipping in both directions but is “unlikely to change its position” further.
Iranian state media have outlined a slightly different proposal.
Press TV reported that negotiations had entered “a new phase” with a “bilateral understanding within reach”.
Much of the reported framework for these talks appears to build on the MoU signed by Iran and the US on June 17 rather than fully replacing it.
Under Article 5 of that agreement, Iran agreed to allow commercial vessels to pass through the Strait of Hormuz without charge for 60 days.
The latest proposals, therefore, appear to focus less on whether ships should be allowed through immediately and more on what happens after the initial 60-day period expires.
The remaining disagreements now appear to centre on who should administer the waterway over the longer term and whether Iran would be allowed to eventually collect fees for maritime services.
However, even if Iran and the US reach an agreement, experts said another obstacle could remain.
If Iran is given responsibility for managing some of the shipping lanes, international shipping companies may need to coordinate with Iranian authorities.
But US sanctions could prevent many companies from doing so unless Washington grants an exemption.
Esfandyar Batmanghelidj, founder and chief executive of the Bourse & Bazaar Foundation, a think tank focusing on economic development and diplomacy in West and Central Asia, said this may work in Iran’s favour.
“Iran can also take advantage of the fact that US sanctions may prohibit coordination or payments with the Iranian authorities.
“A large portion of vessel owners will not engage the channel unless expressly authorised by the Trump administration, putting the ball back in Trump’s court to effectively endorse” a proposal, he said.
US media have reported that concerns over dwindling defensive munitions have contributed to Trump’s decision not to carry out his threatened large-scale strikes against Iran.
Keeping the Strait of Hormuz mostly closed also risks pushing up global energy prices, and, therefore, domestic petrol prices, which would prove unpopular as the November midterm elections in the US approach.
Meanwhile, oil analysts warned that if the Strait of Hormuz disruptions continue, many nations could deplete their oil stockpiles at record rates, which could further push up energy prices to unprecedented levels.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said this means Washington’s priority should be ensuring ships can pass safely rather than preventing Iran from playing any role in administering the strait.
“The Trump administration has increasingly framed the objective as preventing Iran from ‘controlling’ the strait.
Yet the central American interest in strategic waterways has historically been less about who administers them than about whether ships can pass through them freely, predictably and without discrimination,” he said.
“Preventing a hostile state from acquiring coercive leverage has generally been a means of preserving passage, not an end that supersedes passage itself.”
David Des Roches, a former director of Arabian Peninsula affairs in the US Department of Defense, said “what’s really needed here is some sort of agreement that leads to Iran formally announcing that it will cease to attack neutral civilian shipping whether in Omani waters or in international waters.”
Other regional flashpoints also remain unresolved, including the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, attacks by Iran-aligned groups within the region and continued disruptions to shipping in the Red Sea, caused by the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen, and also Trump’s unpredictability and predisposition towards threatening military action.
“I think the region feels like a high-speed roller-coaster as a couple of days ago.
