US President Donald Trump says a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz could be reached within the next 48 hours.
The prospect of a breakthrough raises questions about whether Washington is moving too quickly. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Wednesday that after Mr Trump threatened what he described as “the largest military campaign since World War II against the Iranians”, negotiations accelerated, with a deal potentially possible “today or tomorrow” to reopen the strait. Mr Bessent said any agreement would guarantee “freedom of movement” for commercial shipping and would not introduce a toll system.
Iran claims the US has nothing to do with the deal, which it is negotiating with Oman. But the Trump administration is widely believed to have been in touch with the Omanis for updates on the progress of the talks and, no doubt, seeking to exert influence over the sultanate.
However, based on what is known so far, the US could be accepting – intentionally or otherwise – a framework that gives Iran significant influence over access to one of the world's most important shipping routes.
And, as with the US-Iran framework reached in June – described as a memorandum of understanding (MoU) – the full implications may only become clear later.
Under the arrangement reported by US and Iranian media, inbound traffic would use a northern lane in Iranian waters, while outbound vessels would use a southern lane through Omani waters. The plan would eventually replace the current two-lane system with a single shared corridor after naval mines are cleared.
A Pakistani source told The National on Wednesday that intermediaries are “currently working on drafting an updated MoU”. The June 17 understanding set out the basis for reopening the strait and negotiating a longer-term ceasefire during a 60-day pause in hostilities.
The proposed shift to a single corridor could have wider implications than it first appears.
At present, ships use separate inbound and outbound routes. Under the reported plan, all traffic would ultimately pass through a shared corridor, potentially giving Iran greater influence over how access is managed, depending on the agreement's final terms. That distinction matters.
Rather than two established routes, shipping would rely on a single passage. If Iran plays a central role in overseeing access, it could gain greater influence over vessels entering the strait, even without imposing transit fees.
The key question is whether Iran would have the ability to block vessels it opposes. Based on the information released so far, that appears to be a possibility. Any agreement would require clear rules, independent oversight and enforcement mechanisms to prevent selective restrictions on commercial shipping.
Most states rely on goods moving through the strait and thus are interested in any new deal, particularly the Gulf Arab states. "The Iran-Oman talks and middle corridor are the focus of the new deal, but there are lots of arguments about details. GCC countries would prefer everything to be explicit in any agreement," the Pakistani official told The National.
Following the June memorandum, Washington and Tehran offered differing interpretations of the agreement’s clauses.
The new negotiations are taking place against a fragile security backdrop. Tuesday's attack on the Liberia-flagged Minoan Pioneer off Oman's coast was a reminder that the Strait of Hormuz remains vulnerable even as diplomacy continues. Commercial traffic has fallen sharply in recent days.
Oil prices dropped below $80 on hopes of a deal, reflecting market optimism. Mr Trump has repeated his threat that Iran would be "hit very hard" if the strait is not open, signalling his intent to make sure a deal is reached or bring about a solution by force. But if a new shipping corridor is created without clear limits on Iran's authority or robust enforcement mechanisms, the agreement may not resolve the underlying dispute. Instead, it could simply reshape how the dispute is managed.
