Ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz will be required to coordinate with Iran even when exiting from the Omani side, two diplomatic sources told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday, citing a temporary agreement between the two countries.
According to the agreement, which will last 60 days, ships must enter the strait on the Iranian side and must exit from the Omani side.
Over the course of the agreement, mines will be cleared from the central sections of the waterway, most of which are on the Omani side.
In addition, the sources told the Post that transiting vessels will not be charged fees, despite Iranian demands, with the potential for ships to pay voluntary “insurance, environmental quality fees.”
The sources noted that Iran will likely emphasize that it is worthwhile for ships to pay the voluntary fees.
Negotiations regarding a permanent solution for the Hormuz are set to continue during the period of the agreement, as well as nuclear talks.
Baghaei says agreement in final stage, geographic characteristics agreed upon
Later on Wednesday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said that the geographic characteristics of the Hormuz shipping route were agreed upon with Oman.
Baghaei added that a joint announcement between Iran and Oman is in its final stage, assuming “certain third parties” do not interfere.
He further said that the agreement “in itself” does not mean the strait is secure, noting that there are no plans for Iran’s foreign minister or parliament speaker to travel to Pakistan or Qatar despite an exchange of views with the two countries.
Despite the apparent step towards yielding to Iranian demands, the sources pushed back against assertions by US President Donald Trump that a deal reopening the strait was imminent.
“The concession has already been made regarding some form of control over Hormuz,” one of the regional sources told Reuters.
The other regional source said there were still details to be determined about how “control” would be defined, with Gulf negotiators insisting regional countries supervise inspections of ships, and that any payment of fees be voluntary.
A senior Iranian source said the text of an agreement already on the table envisioned Iran having control of ships heading into the Gulf through the strait, and one of the main sticking points was what role Iran would also have over ships heading in the opposite direction.
Baghaei described the negotiations between Tehran and Muscat as “professional” and “moving forward.”
“The two sides had reached a mutual understanding on the geographical parameters of the route under discussion,” he said.
He said that, if third parties did not obstruct the process, a joint statement between the two countries, containing the main considerations and key points of understanding, was in the final stages of review and drafting.
US rejects Iranian control of the Strait
US officials have repeatedly insisted that they would never accept any arrangement that lets Iran control access to the world’s most important trade route for energy supplies.
But Trump and senior officials in his administration have said in recent days that a deal is imminent to end the war he launched in February and which polls show most US voters oppose.
There was no immediate reply from Washington about any proposed agreement.
Months of US military efforts, including a two-week campaign of strikes in July, have not broken Iran’s grip on the strait. US commanders advised Trump in July that they were running low on supplies of some munitions. Reuters reported on Tuesday that the US Army had used up nearly all of its long-range precision missiles.
Oil markets react to negotiations
Oil prices edged lower on Wednesday after ticking higher following the Iran-aligned Houthi movement in Yemen saying it had fired on a Saudi-flagged tanker in the Red Sea, the latest attack on Middle East shipping that has disrupted global energy supplies.
Crude prices have plunged over the past two days after Trump called off fresh attacks on Iran, citing talks he said could end the conflict.
Trump told Fox News @ Night that talks were “moving along nicely” and “an all-day negotiation” had taken place on Tuesday.
Hormuz “is going to be open very soon,” Trump added.
Over the weekend, Trump cited the negotiations as the reason for a decision to call off plans for “massive attacks” on Iran, a pattern he has repeated numerous times throughout the war.
“Talks are continuing, but it is too early to say that a deal with Oman has been finalized,” the senior Iranian source said. Another Iranian source said: “The devil is in the details. A single tweet from Trump could cause the whole thing to collapse.”
Baghaei said there was no plan for the foreign minister or the parliament speaker, who have been leading negotiations on Iran’s part, to travel to Qatar or Pakistan during the weekend, adding Tehran continued to stay in contact with the two countries that are “continuing their efforts to reduce tensions.”
At a regular briefing in New York, deputy UN spokesperson Farhan Haq said the UN had received no first-hand information about a possible reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, but added: “We certainly encourage the parties to move forward with any effort to have a negotiated solution to the issue.”
An agreement that gives Iran any control over access to the strait would mean the war launched by the United States and Israel had resulted in a major shift in the balance of regional power in Tehran’s favor. Before the war, the strait was freely open to all ships with no fees.
But Trump, who initially said “Operation Epic Fury” would end in Iran’s “unconditional surrender” with him approving the choice of its leader, has been under pressure to find a way out of a war US voters now oppose two-to-one.
According to the senior Iranian official, Iran is seeking fees of between 5% and 7% of the price of cargoes from ships using the strait. Oman is discussing smaller fees of around 3%, while Washington wants no fees at all.
Making any fees voluntary, at least nominally, could be a way out of the impasse, although an implied threat of Iranian attacks could mean shippers would be unlikely to risk transit without paying.