Oman has chosen the path of diplomatic silence
For ten weeks, the Strait of Hormuz — through which a fifth of the world's seaborne oil passes — has remained closed, a consequence of a US-Israeli strike on Iran in February that has since hardened into a contest over who governs the world's most consequential waterway. Iran now proposes to charge shipping fees and register vessel nationalities, framing the measure as sovereign coastal management; the United States and its Western allies call it a violation of the freedom of navigation that underpins the global trading order. Caught between these competing visions, Oman — whose territory flanks the strait's southern edge — has chosen silence, a posture that grows harder to sustain with each passing week.
- A ten-week blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has disrupted one-fifth of global seaborne oil traffic, with no clear path to reopening as legal and geopolitical disputes deepen.
- Iran's newly created Persian Gulf Strait Authority is already requiring ships to register by email and pay roughly one dollar per barrel — blurring the line between optional service fees and mandatory tolls with enormous legal consequences.
- The US and Western allies warn that Iran's scheme violates international maritime law and that any payment in Iranian rials would likely breach UN sanctions on the Revolutionary Guard Corps, while France and the UK have drafted a rival freedom-of-navigation proposal backed by most Gulf states.
- China, which imports nearly 45 percent of Iranian oil through the strait, has allowed tankers to transit after talks with Iran's ambassador — raising the prospect of a direct US-China confrontation over enforcement on the high seas.
- Oman, diplomatically courted by both Tehran and London, has said nothing publicly — a silence that signals its discomfort but cannot substitute indefinitely for a position.
The Strait of Hormuz has been closed for ten weeks, ever since a US-Israeli strike on Iran in February triggered a blockade of the waterway that carries roughly one-fifth of the world's oil by sea. What began as a military rupture has since become a legal and diplomatic contest over who has the right to govern one of the planet's most consequential passages — and Oman, whose Musandam exclave sits at the strait's southern edge, finds itself uncomfortably at the center of it.
Iran's foreign minister announced in India that Tehran was coordinating with Oman on the strait's future management. The proposal involves charging fees on commercial shipping and requiring vessels to register their nationality. On May 5, Iran formalized this vision by establishing the Persian Gulf Strait Authority, which now asks ships to register by email and pay roughly one dollar per barrel of oil to transit. Whether these are voluntary service charges or de facto mandatory tolls remains deliberately ambiguous — a distinction with vast legal and economic consequences.
The United States and its Western allies have rejected the scheme outright. Their objections are both legal and financial: Iran's plan, they argue, violates freedom of navigation under international maritime law, and requiring payments in Iranian rials would likely breach UN sanctions on the Revolutionary Guard Corps. France and the UK have prepared a competing proposal built around freedom of navigation, and British officials have traveled to Muscat to press their case alongside the secretary general of the International Maritime Organization.
Iran's legal defense rests on a technical point: it signed but never ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and therefore claims it is bound only by customary international law, which grants coastal states a more restrictive right of innocent passage. Tehran further argues it may limit transit when its sovereignty is threatened — citing US military bases on the UAE coast as justification.
China adds another layer of complexity. It imports nearly 45 percent of Iran's oil through the strait, and after talks with China's ambassador, the Revolutionary Guard Corps reported that a large group of Chinese tankers had been allowed through under Iranian authority. Trump claimed China agreed with the US position on tolls; Beijing responded only that it wanted the blockade to end. Whether Chinese ships paid fees remains unclear, but Trump has warned that vessels paying illegal tolls will not have safe passage on the high seas — a threat that could draw the US Navy into confrontation with Chinese shipping.
Oman has said nothing. Its silence speaks to the impossible position Muscat occupies — pulled between Tehran's coordination overtures and Washington and London's diplomatic pressure. That silence, for now, is its only answer.
The Strait of Hormuz, a waterway that moves roughly one-fifth of the world's oil by sea, has been closed for ten weeks. A US-Israeli attack on Iran in February triggered the blockade, and now the question of how—or whether—to reopen it has become a test of competing visions for international maritime law, with Oman caught uncomfortably in the middle.
Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, announced in India on Friday that Tehran was coordinating with Oman on the strait's future management. The proposal includes charging fees on commercial shipping and requiring vessels to register their nationality. Oman, whose Musandam exclave sits at the southern edge of the contested waterway, has said nothing publicly in response. The silence is itself a statement: Muscat is being pulled in two directions at once.
The United States has made clear it will not accept any permanent solution that involves paying tolls to Iran. Western diplomats argue that Iran's scheme violates international law by restricting freedom of navigation and giving Tehran arbitrary power to decide which ships may pass. There is also a sanctions problem: requiring vessels to establish accounts in Iranian rials to pay for services would likely violate UN restrictions on money flowing to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. France and the UK have prepared a competing proposal centered on freedom of navigation, which has backing from most Gulf states. British officials, including the Foreign Office's political director Lord Llewellyn, have recently visited Muscat to make their case, as has the secretary general of the International Maritime Organization.
The legal foundation of Iran's position rests on a technical distinction. Iran signed the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982 but never ratified it. This means, from Tehran's perspective, it is not bound by the treaty's transit passage rules that protect freedom of navigation. Instead, Iran claims it operates under customary international law, which grants coastal states a more restrictive right of innocent passage. Iran further argues that even if bound by the convention, it can restrict passage if it perceives a threat to its sovereignty—and it has pointed to US military bases on the UAE coast as evidence of such a threat.
On May 5, Iran established the Persian Gulf Strait Authority, a government agency designed to generate revenue from the strait's management. Ships are now required to register by email with the authority to receive routing information and permission to transit. The fee is set at roughly one dollar per barrel of oil. The ambiguity lies in whether these are genuinely optional service charges or de facto mandatory tolls—a distinction with enormous legal and economic consequences.
China complicates the picture. It imports nearly 45 percent of Iran's oil production through the strait. Donald Trump claimed at a summit in Beijing that China agreed with the US that tolls and restrictions were unacceptable. The Chinese foreign ministry responded vaguely, saying only that it wanted the blockades to end and blamed the US-Israel conflict for the closure. But the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps reported that after talks with China's ambassador, a large group of Chinese oil tankers had been allowed through and had agreed to be subject to Iranian authority. Whether money changed hands remains unclear. Trump has warned that ships paying illegal tolls will not have safe passage on the high seas—a threat that could entangle the US Navy in enforcement against Chinese vessels, though proving a toll was paid at the moment of transit would be difficult.
Meanwhile, the United Arab Emirates issued a statement on Saturday defending all its actions as defensive measures to protect its sovereignty and civilians. The statement came after the Wall Street Journal reported that the UAE had conducted military operations against Iran in early April. If the ceasefire collapses and conflict resumes, the UAE's acknowledged role makes it a clearer target for Iranian retaliation. Oman, by contrast, has chosen the path of diplomatic silence—a position that may not hold much longer.
Citas Notables
The strait is located in the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. There is no international waters in between.— Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi
No one who pays an illegal toll will have safe passage on the high seas.— Donald Trump
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does it matter whether Iran ratified that maritime convention or not?
Because it determines which rules Iran believes it's playing by. If you've signed and ratified, you're bound by transit passage—ships get through, period. If you haven't ratified, you can argue you're only bound by the older, looser rules of innocent passage, which gives you more room to say no.
But Iran did sign it.
Right, but signing without ratifying is a legal gray area. Iran can claim it's not bound. It's like saying I agree with the spirit of the contract but I'm not actually signing the dotted line.
So this is really about whether Oman will back Iran's interpretation.
Exactly. Oman has the geography—the strait runs through its waters too. If Oman says Iran's fees are legitimate, the US has a much harder time arguing they're illegal. If Oman stays silent or sides with the West, Iran's whole scheme looks like overreach.
What happens if China keeps paying these tolls?
Then you've got a precedent. Other coastal states start thinking they can do the same thing with their straits. And the US has to decide whether it's willing to actually block Chinese tankers, which would be an enormous escalation.
Is there any chance this actually gets resolved?
Only if someone blinks on the core question: can a coastal state charge for passage, or not? Right now both sides are dug in, and Oman is the swing vote nobody wants to cast.