Iran and the United States both say they are close to a deal that would restore safer, more predictable shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical oil chokepoint that has been repeatedly disrupted since the war with Iran erupted in February.
A deal “close”, but not done
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Tuesday that progress has been made in negotiations over the Strait of Hormuz, telling reporters at the State Department that talks between Iran and Oman have been “constructive” and that Washington is “hopeful” an agreement will be reached soon, though “no final agreement has yet been reached.”
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent went further in a CNBC interview, saying “we are in talks with the Iranians” and that “there is a chance we may have a deal today or tomorrow to open the Strait and move towards a more normalized position in this conflict.” His remarks sent oil prices sharply lower, reflecting traders’ belief that restored freedom of movement through the strait would ease supply concerns.
On the Iranian side, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei (also reported as Baqaei) has repeatedly described talks with Oman as “positive” and “moving forward,” saying Wednesday that Tehran and Muscat are “in the final stages” of reviewing a joint statement that would set out the main points of agreement on a new commercial shipping corridor.
Iran insists there are “no direct negotiations” with the United States at this stage. Baghaei told Iranian state media that current talks are strictly with Oman and “focused on reaching an understanding on a route that will ensure the safe passage of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz,” with any broader US‑Iran diplomacy pushed to a separate track.
The emerging plan: two lanes, two controllers
Regional officials speaking to The Associated Press and PBS have described a draft framework that would effectively redesign the strait’s shipping lanes into a two-lane system:
- Ships entering the Persian Gulf would use a route under Iranian control.
- Ships exiting would use a route controlled by Oman.
Under that emerging arrangement, Iran and Oman would levy “service fees” to cover security and environmental protection costs, splitting revenue between them. Both governments have avoided the word “toll” in public statements, aware that Washington has strongly opposed any implication that Iran is charging passage fees in the international waterway.
Baghaei said the negotiations are aimed at “establishing safe inbound and outbound shipping lanes” that “uphold sovereign rights while also addressing the national security considerations of both Iran and Oman.”
A U.S. official familiar with the talks, speaking anonymously to AP, stressed that any “temporary routes” would not require approvals by Iran, nor allow the country to charge vessels, and that Washington remains committed to returning to the status quo ante in which “no party controls the lanes or the ability to transit through them.”
That gap, between Iran’s insistence on service fees and recognition of its role, and the US position that no state can claim control over international navigation lanes, remains one of the core unresolved issues even as both sides say a deal is close.
Iran’s broader demands: fees, sanctions relief, and an end to the blockade
Reporting by Iran International and other outlets suggests Iran is linking a Hormuz agreement to much broader concessions. Tehran has demanded:
- The right to collect transit or service fees for ships crossing the strait.
- Sanctions relief, particularly on oil exports.
- Security guarantees, including limits on US and allied naval operations.
- An end to the US naval blockade of Iranian ports introduced in April under the war’s interim memorandum.
Iran International said “prospects for reopening the Strait of Hormuz remained uncertain” Tuesday precisely because Tehran is pressing these wider conditions and tying “normal shipping” not only to fees but also to sanctions relief and the lifting of the blockade.
US officials have indicated they are prepared to discuss technical arrangements to restore safe passage but not to accept any solution that leaves Iran in control of the waterway or allows it to monetize access. Al Jazeera reported Thursday that “US officials say they would not accept any arrangement on the waterway that would leave Iran in control,” underscoring the geopolitical stakes behind what appears, on the surface, as a technical shipping agreement.
Why Hormuz matters
The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints. Before the 2026 crisis, roughly one-fifth of globally traded oil and significant volumes of gas and fertilizer transited its narrow lanes daily. A UNCTAD analysis of February–March 2026 traffic found ship transits “near a halt” in the immediate aftermath of the US‑Israeli strikes on Iran, and many tankers and bulk carriers are still operating on detours or under naval escort.
The strait has been intermittently closed or severely disrupted since February 28, when US and Israeli forces launched air strikes that killed Iran’s supreme leader and decapitated parts of the government. Iran responded by blocking shipping and threatening vessels it deemed aligned with Western powers. Subsequent ceasefires and memoranda of understanding have repeatedly promised reopening, only to collapse amid renewed hostilities and disputes over enforcement.
In June, the US‑Iran Islamabad Memorandum set out a 60‑day framework intended to end the war and fully reopen Hormuz, but Iran declared the strait closed again after Israeli strikes in Lebanon, accusing Washington of failing to curb its ally’s actions and breaching the deal. The US military disputed that assertion, saying dozens of merchant vessels continued to transit daily under US monitoring.
Markets and militaries watching closely
Oil and shipping markets have reacted sharply to each public signal about the talks. Bessent’s comment that a deal might be reached “today or tomorrow” caused oil prices to fall, while news of fresh attacks on commercial ships and Iranian demands for fees have pushed prices higher, according to coverage in the New York Post and CNBC.
The US military insists that, despite Iranian claims, “the Strait of Hormuz remains open” and that commercial vessels continue to transit. Pentagon spokespeople say naval escorts and a widened route near Oman announced by the Joint Maritime Information Center in June have allowed some traffic to bypass contested lanes, even as long-term uncertainty persists.
From the US perspective, the immediate goal is a temporary arrangement that increases short-term safety and throughput while broader questions, including Iran’s nuclear program and regional military posture, are pushed into separate negotiations. Rubio has described the Hormuz talks as a “first step” toward what he calls the “ultimate deal,” denuclearization and a sustainable peace framework.
A deal close, but fragile
Al Jazeera’s latest roundup of positions captured what both sides now publicly acknowledge: Hormuz is “close” to a deal, but fragile. Iran says a joint statement with Oman is “on the verge of being finalized,” pending one or two remaining issues. US officials speak of “progress” and say they hope for an agreement “very shortly,” yet emphasize that nothing is signed and insist they will not endorse any framework that grants Iran control over the strait or lets it levy tolls.
Attacks on commercial vessels in recent days, and continuing disputes over fees and sanctions, underline how quickly optimism could give way to renewed crisis. For now, the Strait of Hormuz negotiations remain both a technical exercise in redrafting shipping lanes and a symbolic test of whether Washington and Tehran can carve out even a narrow area of cooperation while a broader war still smolders around them.