Oman insists it is merely facilitating lawful discussion
At the narrow throat of the world's most vital shipping lane, a small sultanate finds itself holding a thread between two powers who no longer share a common language. Oman, long practiced in the art of quiet mediation, insists its conversations with Iran concern only the lawful stewardship of the Strait of Hormuz — yet Washington hears in those conversations the architecture of a toll system dressed in legal clothing. The dispute is not merely about fees or passage rights; it is about who gets to define the rules of a waterway that carries a fifth of the world's oil, and whether neutrality itself can survive when every silence is read as allegiance.
- Trump threatened to bomb Oman, and Secretary Rubio publicly questioned the sultanate's loyalty, forcing Muscat's ambassador into emergency damage-control meetings at Treasury and State.
- Iran has already stood up a Persian Gulf Strait Authority — now under US sanctions — through which over 300 shipping companies have applied for transit permits, mostly bound for China and India.
- The IMO's secretary general has stated plainly that international law permits no country to impose tolls or discriminatory conditions on international straits, undercutting Iran's legal framing.
- The US is attacking Iranian radar installations to strip Tehran of the surveillance capacity needed to enforce any new maritime regime, turning the legal dispute into a live operational conflict.
- Oman walks a razor's edge: it has condemned Iranian strikes on Bahrain and Kuwait and opposes transit fees, yet continues facilitating talks — a posture Washington increasingly refuses to accept as neutral.
Oman is refusing to choose between Washington and Tehran, even as the pressure to do so grows dangerous. The sultanate, which shares stewardship of the Strait of Hormuz with Iran, says its negotiations with the Islamic Republic concern only lawful maritime management — a framework it insists would comply with international law and pass through the IMO. The United States does not believe it.
The rupture became public when Trump casually threatened to bomb Oman, and Secretary of State Rubio told the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee that no country on Earth besides Iran — and perhaps Oman — was willing to entertain what Tehran was proposing. Oman's ambassador rushed to reassure Treasury and State officials that the sultanate opposes tolls and remains committed to freedom of navigation.
The sultanate's position reflects decades of practiced neutrality. It has been sharply critical of Israel's conduct and this week condemned Iranian strikes on Bahrain and Kuwait — selective stances that preserve its credibility as a broker between hostile powers. That balancing act is now being tested as never before.
Iran has framed its proposed fees not as tolls but as compensation for environmental damage caused by military operations, and as payment for navigation services rendered. Its Persian Gulf Strait Authority has already received permit applications from more than 300 shipping companies. But the IMO's secretary general stated in April that international law provides no basis for any country to impose payments on international straits, and some Iranian economists have warned that direct strait revenue could invite a coalition against Tehran.
The United States has responded by striking Iranian radar installations — denying Tehran the surveillance capability needed to enforce any maritime regime — and by prohibiting Americans from receiving any Iranian services, including safe passage guarantees. The standoff hardens: Oman calls itself a facilitator, Iran calls its fees legitimate compensation, and Washington calls the entire arrangement a toll scheme by another name.
Oman finds itself caught between two powers with irreconcilable visions for the Strait of Hormuz, and it is refusing to choose sides despite mounting pressure from Washington. The sultanate, a longtime American ally that shares responsibility for one of the world's most critical shipping lanes, insists its negotiations with Iran concern only the lawful management of the waterway—a system that would comply with international maritime law and be vetted through the UN's International Maritime Organization. But the United States does not believe it.
The tension erupted into public view last week when Donald Trump, speaking casually, threatened to bomb Oman. Days later, Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee and cast doubt on Oman's neutrality, saying there was no country on Earth besides Iran—and perhaps Oman—willing to entertain what Iran was proposing in the strait. The accusation stung, and Oman's ambassador to Washington, Talal bin Suleiman al-Rahbi, scrambled to repair the relationship. He met with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and officials inside the State Department to reassure them that Oman opposes any system of tolls and remains committed to the principle of freedom of navigation.
Oman's predicament reflects its historical role in the Gulf. For decades, the sultanate has positioned itself as a back-channel mediator, remaining neutral in disputes that have fractured relationships elsewhere in the region. It is not entirely neutral—it has been sharply critical of Israel's disregard for international law, and this week it condemned Iranian attacks on Bahrain and Kuwait. But that selective criticism is precisely what allows Oman to maintain its standing as a broker between hostile powers.
Iran, for its part, has been working to make its proposal appear lawful. It established the Persian Gulf Strait Authority, now sanctioned by the US Treasury, through which ships must request permission to transit. Iran proposes a non-discriminatory fee for passage, framed not as a toll but as compensation for environmental damage caused by military operations in the region and as payment for services rendered. Arman Khorsand, head of Iran's Department of Environment Center for International Affairs and Environmental Conventions, argued this week that those responsible for causing damage should bear the costs of remediation. Other Iranian voices, including economist Saeed Laylaz, have urged caution, warning that direct income from the strait could provoke international coalitions against Iran and that prosperity would come instead from making it a zone of peace.
But the International Maritime Organization's secretary general, Arsenio Dominguez, made clear on April 27 that there is no legal basis under international law for any country to impose payments, tolls, or discriminatory conditions on international straits. Some Omani politicians have shown sympathy for charging fees for specific services—Mohammed Suleiman Tamim al-Hinai, a member of Oman's Shura council, noted that Oman itself provides maritime services including protection, rescue, and navigation support without imposing transit fees. Oman has been assisting vessels, including American ones, since the conflict began, offering navigation guidance and medical assistance to crews.
The United States remains convinced that Oman is privately planning a fee system indistinguishable from tolls. American suspicions about Oman's intentions date back to before the Israeli-US war began, when Oman's foreign minister Badr al-Busaidi appeared on American television pleading for more time to complete mediation talks, suggesting an agreement was within reach. The US has responded by attacking Iranian radar installations, depriving Iran of the surveillance capability it would need to enforce any new maritime regime. The Treasury Department has also prohibited American citizens from receiving any services from Iran, including guarantees of safe passage through the strait.
Meanwhile, Iran's Persian Gulf Strait Authority reports that more than 300 shipping companies have applied for permits, with vessels primarily heading to Asian destinations—especially China and India—on departure, and to the United Arab Emirates on arrival. Iran's deputy speaker of parliament, Ali Nikzad, said the government is working to merge three different draft laws to define how the maritime regime would operate and whether it would be temporary. The standoff continues: Oman insists it is merely facilitating lawful discussion, Iran insists its fees are legitimate compensation, and the United States insists both are engaged in a scheme to effectively toll the world's most important shipping lane.
Notable Quotes
There isn't a country on Earth other than Iran—and maybe Oman that flirted with it—who's in favour of what Iran is doing in the straits.— US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, testifying to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee
The objective is to secure resources needed to address environmental damage and compensate for the consequences of actions that have undermined the principle of innocent passage.— Arman Khorsand, head of Iran's Department of Environment Center for International Affairs and Environmental Conventions
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does Oman matter so much here? It's a small country.
Because it's the only actor with credibility on both sides. The US trusts it historically, and Iran will listen to it. If Oman breaks that trust by siding with either power, the entire mediation structure collapses.
But Trump just threatened to bomb it. How does Oman recover from that?
It doesn't, really. That threat fundamentally changed the relationship. Oman is now trying to convince Washington it's still loyal while maintaining enough distance from Iran to keep talking. It's an impossible balance.
Is Iran's fee system actually illegal?
Under international maritime law, it's murky. Coastal states can charge for specific services rendered. The question is whether Iran's fees are genuinely for services or are disguised tolls. The IMO says there's no legal basis for tolls, but Iran argues it's environmental remediation, not a toll.
And the US just keeps attacking Iranian radar?
Yes. It's a way of saying: we don't care what you agree to on paper, we'll make sure you can't enforce it. It's a form of pressure that doesn't require diplomacy.
What does Oman actually want?
To remain relevant and trusted. To keep the strait open. To not have to choose. But the world is forcing it to choose, and every choice it makes alienates someone.