Iran and Oman are close to agreeing on a route for ships to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway between Iran and Oman that carries a large share of the world's oil and gas. Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said on August 5, 2026, that the two countries have settled on the exact path for the route and that a public statement is almost ready, unless outside parties interfere (New York Times.

Here is how Iran says it would work: ships entering the Persian Gulf would sail through a lane controlled by Iran, close to Iran's coast. Ships leaving the gulf would sail through a lane near Oman. Iran says the deal includes a "service fee" — a charge on ships to cover environmental costs, security, and staffing. Iran and Oman would split that money equally (New York Times).

A U.S. official familiar with the talks said Iran's description was "not accurate." The official said any temporary routes through the strait would not require Iran's permission and would not involve any tolls or fees (New York Times).

The two accounts do not match. Iran says it would have control over ships coming in and oversight over ships going out, plus a share of the money. The U.S. says the arrangement would be temporary, with no Iranian say over who passes through and no fees at all. Reuters, citing a source on August 4, reported that Iran is seeking control over inbound shipping and the ability to monitor and intervene in outbound traffic (Reuters).

Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz in 2026 after the United States and Israel attacked Iran. The strait is a critical pathway for global energy supplies. But Iran's own diplomatic mission in Copenhagen says 90% of Iran's maritime trade also depends on the strait (Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs), so the closure hurt Iran's own economy too.

Talks moved forward in early August. On August 2, Iran's foreign ministry said Tehran and Muscat, Oman's capital, were close to a deal on a new route separate from existing ones (The New Arab). On August 4, officials from both countries said they had made progress toward reopening the waterway (WSLS; Baltimore Sun). By August 5, Baghaei said the joint statement was nearly finished. But he warned it could be derailed by "obstruction by third parties," a sign that U.S. disagreement may complicate things.

The broader context is that this dispute is about more than shipping lanes. It is about who gets to control access to one of the world's most important waterways and whether anyone can charge ships to pass through. Iran sees the deal as a shared arrangement with Oman that includes tolls and control. The U.S. sees it as temporary corridors with no Iranian authority and no money involved. These are not small differences in wording. They are clashing visions of who governs the strait and on what legal basis.

The United States is not part of the Iran-Oman talks, but it has a strong interest in making sure Iran cannot charge fees or decide who passes through. Under customary international law — the unwritten rules that most countries accept as binding — the strait is supposed to be free for all ships to transit. Baghaei's mention of "third parties" hints at the complexity: several countries care deeply about what happens here. The gap between the two accounts could mean the negotiating text is deliberately vague, or it could mean the parties agreed on the route but not on the harder question of who controls it.

Separately, Iran rejected a complaint from Qatar about a reported incident involving a Qatar-linked ship in the strait in July (Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs). That dispute shows the strait was a flashpoint among Gulf states even before the closure.

The joint statement Baghaei referred to has not been published. The conflicting accounts from Iran and the United States suggest that whatever Iran and Oman have agreed to, they have not yet produced a shared understanding that satisfies everyone with a stake in the strait.