Iran said on August 5, 2026, that it and Oman had finalised the geographical coordinates of a proposed shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz, while conflicting accounts persisted over the United States’ role and the conditions for reopening the waterway.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said the two countries were also preparing a joint statement covering technical, legal, security and environmental matters. He described the route agreement as an Iran-Oman process and referred to the United States as a third party whose actions could obstruct it.
Iranian state television characterised the proposal as a “middle corridor” that Iran and Oman would control. Other Iranian media reports said agreement on coordinates would not itself reopen the strait. Official sources quoted by Iranian media linked any reopening to an end to what Tehran calls a US naval blockade of Iranian ports.
Baghaei similarly said the bilateral arrangement could not by itself guarantee safe navigation while the alleged blockade and other US measures against Iran and its interests remained in place. Iran’s assertion about a blockade was reported as Tehran’s position; the cited account did not include an independent confirmation of it.
Disagreement over Washington’s involvement
Tehran maintained that the two months of Iran-Oman discussions were consistent with a memorandum of understanding signed with the United States in June, but Iranian outlets also insisted that the route negotiations did not involve Washington. US President Donald Trump gave a different account in an interview with Fox News on August 4, saying the United States was part of negotiations that were progressing well.
Trump predicted that the strait would open soon and threatened severe action if it did not. His comments stood in contrast to Iranian state broadcaster IRIB’s assertion that reopening depended on a change in US behaviour and the correction of what it called violations.
Another unresolved issue concerns passage fees. Tehran claims sovereign authority over the strategic waterway and insists on charging vessels. The United States and Gulf countries oppose that position and maintain that navigation should remain free under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The strait carries roughly one quarter of the world’s oil traded by sea, making its status consequential for energy shipments. According to the cited report, Iran effectively closed the passage after US and Israeli strikes in late February, and the disruption produced sharp movements in energy markets.
Danny Citrinowicz, a former head of the Israeli military intelligence research department, argued on X that restoring the previous situation would have required either changing Iran’s government or maintaining a military effort to control the waterway. He said neither course was acceptable to Washington because of the costs and long-term commitments involved, presenting accommodation as an undesirable but realistic outcome.
The announcement therefore marked progress on the route’s physical definition without resolving the larger dispute. Iran and Oman had agreed coordinates and were reviewing a broader statement, but Tehran continued to attach conditions to safe passage and reopening, while Washington publicly claimed a place in negotiations that Iranian accounts described as bilateral.
