A U.S. official told MBN on Thursday that Washington would not accept any arrangement in the Strait of Hormuz that requires permits, imposes transit fees or grants any party control over commercial shipping, responding to reports of an Iranian-Omani agreement to partially reopen the strategic waterway.
The official said, “any temporary routes will be without any impediments — meaning no approvals or permissions and no tolls or charges.”
The comments came after Iran announced that it was finalizing a bilateral framework with Oman under which Tehran would oversee vessels entering the Gulf, while Muscat would coordinate outbound traffic in consultation with Iran.
Competing Visions
The differing positions underscore a broader dispute over the nature of the proposed arrangement. Washington insists on unrestricted freedom of navigation, while Tehran seeks a leading role in managing maritime traffic and has tied reopening the passage to the lifting of sanctions, an end to what it calls the naval blockade on its ports, and the release of frozen Iranian assets.
Tehran has described the arrangement as a strictly bilateral agreement with Oman. It has also demanded that the United States lift sanctions, end restrictions on its ports and release frozen Iranian assets before the passage is reopened.
The U.S. official reiterated that “The Strait of Hormuz is an international waterway, and no party controls the lanes or the ability to transit through them.”
The remarks are consistent with statements by senior U.S. officials, including President Donald Trump, who have repeatedly stressed the need to safeguard freedom of navigation through the strait.
Even so, the conflicting accounts from Washington and Tehran have raised questions about the scope of the negotiations and whether the discussions are limited to maritime traffic or could lay the groundwork for a broader agreement.
Questions Over Viability
Raphael Cohen, a Middle East analyst at the RAND Corporation, told MBN that the Iranian-Omani proposal may not represent an ideal agreement for President Trump. However, he said it could be preferable to continued hostilities or a prolonged maritime blockade.
Cohen also questioned whether Iran would adhere to such an arrangement, citing its past record of walking away from publicly announced agreements and carrying out attacks on commercial shipping after previous deals had been reached.
Jacob Stoil, a researcher in Middle East security studies at the U.S. Army War College, said that if Iran and Oman change the precedent governing international straits, “there could be increased competition and perhaps even conflict along these critical choke points the world over.”
Speaking in his capacity as a researcher and not on behalf of the U.S. government or the U.S. Army, Stoil added that the ability to control straits through which international commerce flows could “set up a disparity between states that have signed UNCLOS, which has a stronger ban on this, and states that have not.”
Shipping industry sources told Reuters on Thursday that the proposed Iran-Oman arrangement would be difficult to implement because of U.S. sanctions and insurance requirements that restrict financial transactions.
The International Maritime Organization, the U.N. agency responsible for shipping, said it could not comment on reports concerning the proposal.
In July, however, the organization’s governing council reiterated that states bordering the Strait of Hormuz must guarantee “the right of passage for all vessels without discrimination or restrictions” through the established traffic separation scheme, and that such transit should remain free of fees or charges.
Roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil supplies pass through the Strait of Hormuz.
With Washington and Tehran still at odds over who controls access to the strait, any reopening remains uncertain — and shippers, wary of the risk, may hold back regardless of what’s signed.
Adapted and translated from the original Arabic.
