Strait of Hormuz: A Contested Waterway
The Strait of Hormuz, a vital maritime passage, continues to be a focal point of international discussion as Iran and Oman exchange differing proposals for its future management. This strategic chokepoint, through which a significant portion of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) transits, has been central to recent geopolitical tensions and conflicts involving the United States and Iran.
Following a period of hostilities that saw the strait closed by Tehran and a subsequent blockade of Iranian ports by the US, a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed on June 17 aimed to reopen the waterway for 60 days without charge. However, ambiguities within this agreement have fueled disagreements concerning ultimate control and navigation protocols, leading to renewed military engagements and ongoing diplomatic efforts.
Oman's Vision for Joint Oversight
According to Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, Oman has put forward a proposal advocating for a joint regional mechanism that would divide control of the strait equally between the two nations. This model suggests that Iran would oversee transit lanes on its side of the strait, while Oman would manage those along its coastline. Gharibabadi elaborated on the Omani proposition, stating, "Oman proposed to us the creation of a route in the Strait of Hormuz, with 50 percent of it located in our territorial waters and 50 percent in Omani territorial waters. The route for ships to pass through the Strait of Hormuz could involve entering through our waters and exiting through Omani territorial waters."
Furthermore, Oman's proposal included the concept of "voluntary fees" from transiting vessels, which would be allocated to both countries. This approach appears to draw inspiration from the existing arrangement in the Strait of Malacca, where Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore request voluntary contributions from ships to fund navigation, environmental protection, and search-and-rescue operations. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) foreign ministers reportedly convened a meeting to discuss regional security, indicating broader regional support for Oman's initiative. Nevertheless, Iran has rejected this proposal, citing national security concerns as the primary reason.
Iran's Counter-Proposal: Asserting Greater Control
In response to Oman's offer, Tehran has presented its own counter-proposal, which, if implemented, would grant Iran a more dominant role in managing maritime traffic. Gharibabadi outlined Iran's vision, explaining that it would involve Iran managing shipping through its territorial waters, with Muscat overseeing only a portion of the opposite lane. "Our proposal is for one route to lie entirely within the territorial waters of the Islamic Republic of Iran, with part of the other route also passing through Iranian territorial waters, so that Iran can effectively exercise oversight over both inbound and outbound traffic," he stated.
The Iranian official issued a clear warning, indicating that the Strait of Hormuz would remain closed if Oman does not accept Tehran's plan. He also emphasized that the pre-war arrangement, which allowed ships to pass without any tolls, would not be reinstated. Reports from Al Jazeera's Resul Serdar Atas suggest that Oman is now considering an alternative proposal that could introduce three distinct routes for maritime traffic: one through Iranian waters, an international lane, and a third through Omani waters. While Iran's exact reaction to this potential new development remains uncertain, sources indicate a degree of flexibility from Tehran.
Additional Points of Contention
Beyond the fundamental question of control, several other issues are under active discussion. These include the precise direction and trajectory of ships within the transit lanes, the structure and amount of fees to be collected, the authority responsible for defining any agreed-upon arrangements, and crucial mine clearance operations within the strait. While the US has accused Tehran of deploying mines in the strait, Iran has not confirmed these allegations. However, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps did issue a map in April, during the conflict, outlining a permitted route for approved shipping that directed vessels closer to the Iranian coast, reportedly to avoid potential mines.
The financial aspect of transit fees represents another significant point of divergence. Paul Musgrave, a professor at Georgetown University in Qatar, highlighted that the voluntary fee system in the Strait of Malacca generates approximately $70 million annually. This figure stands in stark contrast to the reported $1 million per ship that Tehran has allegedly proposed as a "service fee" for passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has previously indicated that any collected shipping fees would be allocated towards the extensive reconstruction efforts necessitated by infrastructure damage sustained during US-Israeli attacks.
