Iran’s Hormuz draft plan would bar US and Israeli ships

Summary:

The latest:

A draft plan carried by Iranian state media last week would bar American and Israeli ships from the Strait of Hormuz and impose compensation payments on states classified as hostile to Iran. It surfaced while Tehran and Muscat negotiate temporary northbound and southbound shipping corridors under joint management, and directly contradicts the US position that the passage stay open to international shipping.

Details:

• The draft’s terms: Iranian official media said the plan blocks US and Israeli vessels, levies compensation on countries deemed hostile, and attaches hardline Iranian war-related demands presented as preconditions for fully reopening the strait beyond the proposed corridors. The reports did not identify which states fall in the hostile category.
• The talks: Iran and Oman have negotiated for weeks with unclear results. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on 1 August that talks with Muscat had entered their final stages, while spokesman Ismail Baqaei said the two were close to agreeing an entirely new maritime route different from pre-war corridors.
• The fees: Iranian officials said the arrangement would include service fees split between Iran and Oman. Transit was free until the war began in February. No fee level, currency or collection mechanism was disclosed.
• The Omani model: Oman’s proposal is based, according to reports, on the Malacca Strait model, where ships pay voluntary fees to a regional mechanism rather than mandatory charges to one state. That would block sole Iranian control. Muscat has not publicly confirmed adopting the plan.
• The US red lines: An American official told Al Hurra earlier this month Washington will not accept any Hormuz arrangement requiring permits, imposing transit fees, or granting any party control over commercial shipping. The June memorandum of understanding barred fees for only 60 days, leaving future management to Iran and Oman.
• An earlier rejection: Oman proposed joint 50-50 oversight of Hormuz in late July. Tehran rejected it within days and offered a plan leaving Muscat only a small portion of the corridor. Iran also attacked ships crossing Hormuz through Omani waters, according to the report.
• What Oman wants: The sultanate seeks a formal, direct share in managing the waterway after the war, plus a cut of any tanker transit fees, academic Abdullah Baabood said. He described Omani leverage as based on access, trust and agenda-setting rather than coercion.
• The economic stake: Omani economist Khalfan al-Tawqi said alternative Gulf routes, including UAE-launched green corridors offering land links to some Omani ports, gave those ports traffic and standing they lacked before. He said traders now weigh Oman as a future hub or alternative.
• The scale: Before the war, Hormuz carried up to a quarter of global oil trade. The material gave no figure for current volumes or for how much traffic the temporary corridors handle.
• Trump’s line: President Donald Trump said this month Washington would delay new strikes on Iran hoping for a quick deal, calling it Tehran’s last chance to sign. Iran publicly denied any active direct negotiations with the US, saying its only live talks are with Oman.

Background:

Oman hosted rounds of US-Iranian talks and kept diplomatic channels open after the war began, calling for a ceasefire. Baabood said its role shifted from nuclear and political mediation to regional security, chiefly navigation through Hormuz.

Between the lines:

The gap is wider than the diplomatic language suggests. Tehran’s published draft claims authority to exclude foreign vessels, while Oman’s reported Malacca-style model is designed to prevent exactly that. Baabood warned Muscat risks American and Western pressure if any arrangement is read as recognizing Iran’s sole control or as mandatory transit fees — leaving Oman squeezed between the two positions it is mediating.

What’s next

Whether Araghchi’s final-stage talks produce a published Iran-Oman agreement, whether transit fees appear in it, and whether Washington accepts corridors it has not endorsed.