Trump threatened Oman as Washington and Tehran remain deadlocked over Iran and the Strait of Hormuz
Muscat has been negotiating with Tehran on a temporary route for commercial shipping through the waterway
The crisis is testing Oman’s ability to mediate while maintaining its maritime and diplomatic role
US President Donald Trump has threatened to bomb Oman if it “gets in the way” of a deal with Iran, drawing the Gulf sultanate into a confrontation in which it has traditionally sought to keep diplomatic channels open. The warning came as US-Iran talks stalled, the 60-day period under an interim understanding expired and Tehran warned that it could adopt a “fully offensive” posture if diplomacy failed.
The timing is significant. Oman has been negotiating separately with Iran over a temporary arrangement for commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, even as Washington maintains pressure on Tehran and asserts control over the strategic waterway. What began as an effort to restore maritime traffic has therefore become entangled with the central dispute between the US and Iran.
Why Oman Matters
As one of the two coastal states bordering the Strait, Muscat has sought to keep navigation discussions focused on safe passage and international law.
On June 23, Oman and Iran reaffirmed their commitment to safe passage through the Strait while emphasising the sovereignty and sovereign rights of both coastal states over their territorial waters. They agreed to continue discussions through a joint working group on navigation, maritime services and associated costs. Oman also reaffirmed its support for the Islamabad memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran and the importance of sustaining dialogue and coordination for its implementation.
That position is important because Oman was not initially presenting its engagement with Tehran as an alternative to the US-Iran framework. Instead, Muscat was trying to facilitate navigation while supporting the broader diplomatic process.
A day later, Oman said it had worked with the International Maritime Organization to make available a temporary maritime corridor for vessels seeking to transit the Strait. It said the arrangement was consistent with international law and freedom of navigation and would not impose transit fees.
The Hormuz Dispute
By July, Iran and Oman had moved into more detailed discussions on navigation, with both sides agreeing to continue talks at political and technical levels. Oman said the discussions were aimed at ensuring safe and free navigation through the Strait in accordance with international law.
Iran subsequently said the talks had advanced considerably. Tehran said the two countries had agreed on geographic coordinates for a proposed navigation route and were preparing a joint statement. Iran said technical, legal, security and environmental aspects were being examined.
Earlier this month, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran and Oman were close to an agreement on a temporary shipping route. He said Iranian and Omani military and naval officials had discussed the route and that Iran no longer accepted the previously used traffic separation scheme. A new arrangement would therefore have to be established, with the temporary route potentially serving as the basis for a permanent one.
The details matter because this is not simply a question of allowing ships to pass.
The negotiations involve the legal mechanism and management of the Strait, the designation of shipping routes, monitoring of vessels, maritime services, environmental cooperation and security arrangements. Iran has also said that an agreement with Oman alone would not be sufficient to restore normal navigation while the wider US blockade and military confrontation continue.
That makes the shipping talks a question of authority as well as logistics.
Where Washington Stands
The United States has taken a fundamentally different position on the Strait.
In July, the White House described Trump as asserting “total naval control” of the Strait of Hormuz as part of Washington's maximum-pressure campaign against Iran, with Trump saying the US had a blockade in place and that Iran did not control the Strait.
That position directly conflicts with Tehran's insistence on Iranian authority over the Strait.
This is what makes the emerging Iran-Oman arrangement particularly sensitive for Washington. A bilateral mechanism that determines how commercial vessels move through Hormuz necessarily raises questions about who has authority over those routes and under whose security arrangements ships would travel.
For Iran, the talks are explicitly bilateral. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei has said that negotiations with Oman concern arrangements for safe shipping and are separate from any direct US-Iran negotiations. Tehran has also denied reports that it proposed direct talks with Washington.
The distinction matters because Oman is attempting to address a maritime problem through a bilateral mechanism while Washington views the Strait through the wider framework of its pressure campaign against Tehran.
Why Iran Is Digging In
Iran's position has hardened as the interim framework has unravelled.
Tehran says Washington failed to implement its commitments under the Islamabad MOU, while the US has accused Iran of actions inconsistent with the understanding. Those competing accounts have increasingly narrowed the space for diplomacy. Iran has rejected an extension of the interim framework and has linked the reopening of Hormuz to wider issues including the US blockade, sanctions and military operations.
On Tuesday, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf reiterated that Iran would not reopen the Strait until the United States lifts its blockade, ends oil sanctions, releases Iranian frozen assets and ends military threats and operations. He also accused Washington of failing to comply with the Islamabad MOU.
The position reflects the broader deterioration in US-Iran diplomacy. The 60-day period established under the June understanding expired without a wider agreement, while Trump has rejected simply extending the interim arrangement. Iran, meanwhile, has warned of a shift towards a “fully offensive” posture if diplomacy fails.
The dispute means that reopening Hormuz is no longer merely a maritime question. It has become tied to the larger dispute over sanctions, military operations, negotiations and the balance of authority between Washington and Tehran.
Why Oman Is In The Crossfire
This is where Oman's position becomes particularly difficult.
Muscat is not publicly negotiating with Tehran to determine the outcome of the US-Iran conflict. Its stated focus is safe navigation. Its June statement with Iran backed safe passage while emphasising the sovereignty and sovereign rights of the two coastal states, and its subsequent work with the IMO was framed around restoring maritime traffic.
Yet those very discussions touch the central issue in the confrontation: who determines how commercial vessels move through the Strait while the conflict continues?
Iran says its talks with Oman are bilateral and focused on establishing a safe route. Washington, meanwhile, has asserted US control over the waterway as part of its pressure campaign. The two positions leave little room for Muscat to pursue a technical shipping arrangement without its actions being viewed through the wider US-Iran confrontation.
Trump's threat therefore matters because it puts pressure on the very diplomatic and maritime role that has made Oman useful to the region. Muscat's leverage comes from being able to maintain channels with competing sides. If facilitating an Iran-Oman shipping arrangement is treated by Washington as interference, that space for mediation becomes harder to preserve.
What Happens Next
The immediate question is whether Iran and Oman can turn their negotiations into an operational shipping arrangement while the wider US-Iran confrontation remains unresolved.
The two countries have moved beyond general discussions to negotiations over a specific temporary route, including its legal framework, management, monitoring and security arrangements. Oman has separately worked with the IMO to provide a temporary maritime corridor, while Iran has made clear that a bilateral understanding with Muscat would not by itself resolve the broader conditions surrounding the closure of Hormuz.
For Oman, the dilemma now goes beyond shipping. Its ability to facilitate navigation depends on maintaining workable relations with Iran while avoiding a direct clash with Washington's strategy.
The Strait of Hormuz is therefore becoming not only a central pressure point in the US-Iran confrontation, but also a test of whether regional diplomacy can operate independently of it. For Oman, whose current role depends on keeping that diplomatic and maritime channel open, losing that space could mean a much deeper entanglement in the conflict it has spent years trying to mediate.
