The dispute over the sovereignty over the oil artery
Washington’s frustration is explained by the fact that more than 20 percent of global oil distribution passes through the Strait of Hormuz. Since the start of the joint US-Israeli attack on Iran in late February, Tehran has effectively blocked this key waterway, triggering a global energy crisis and the threat of a food collapse. Unsuccessful attempts by the US to blockade Iranian ports by sea failed to fully restore commercial shipping.
In addition, Iran began to exercise sovereignty in the strait and collect tolls from passing ships, which in some cases reached up to two million dollars per vessel. Under international maritime law, it is illegal to collect tolls in natural straits, even if they pass through the sovereign waters of coastal states.
However, Iranian state television reported that Tehran and Muscat were preparing a memorandum of understanding. Under this unofficial proposal, the two countries would jointly manage the transport, with payments from ships formally reclassified as “service fees” – such as insurance, maintenance or navigational assistance – bypassing legal hurdles.
Although the Trump administration called the news a pure fabrication, analysts warn that the overly aggressive response of the White House suggests otherwise.
The American Treasury Department led by Scott Bessent countered the very next day with the threat of massive sanctions. Bessent warned that the US would respond aggressively to any actors directly or indirectly involved in facilitating the collection of fees in the strait.
According to experts, Washington wants to prevent two things at all costs. In the first place, the legalization and normalization of Iranian control over the strait under administrative and legal cover from the reliable US ally, in the second place, the precedent that the so-called chokepoints, i.e. strategic sea straits, can be charged and controlled by the coastal states. This would undermine the global principle of free navigation, which the US has long guaranteed.
The Switzerland of the Orient in the crossfire
Oman has been building a unique position for a long time. As the only country in the Persian Gulf, it maintains stable and confidential relations with all parties – from Riyadh and Abu Dhabi to Washington to Tehran. Moreover, unlike Qatar, Bahrain or the UAE, Oman does not have US military bases on its territory. This diplomatic flexibility of his, which was a great advantage in times of peace, however, became more of a burden after the outbreak of war in February.
Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi was a key figure in the secret nuclear talks between the US and Iran. As recently as February 27, just a few hours before the US airstrikes began, Albusaidi met with US Vice President JD Vance and spoke of unprecedented progress and “creative proposals”. However, Trump launched the attack on the grounds that he “had a feeling” Iran was going to strike first. At the time, Oman publicly rejected claims that Iran posed an imminent threat.
The war subsequently affected Oman not only diplomatically, but also physically. At the start of the conflict, Iran attacked infrastructure in the Gulf and the Omani commercial port of Dukm was hit by drones. At the time, Trump paradoxically expressed solidarity with Muscat that Iran is attacking countries that have nothing to do with the conflict. Today, however, everything is different.
Dead end negotiations and military reality
Trump’s threats come as Pakistan-brokered talks on a long-term ceasefire have stalled. Although a fragile ceasefire has been in place since April, skirmishes continue in the background.
An example is the defensive airstrikes that US forces carried out on the drone control center in Bandar Abbas, Iran. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards retaliated by hitting a US airbase in the region and firing warning shots at a British tanker that tried to pass through the strait with its radar off. The Kuwaiti air defense subsequently had to eliminate enemy missiles and drones aimed at American objects on its territory.
Trump’s new demand also complicates the situation. The president has made any peace deal with Iran conditional on other Arab and Muslim countries, including Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, signing the Abraham Accords (the 2020 treaties that led to the normalization of relations between Israel and several Arab states, brokered by the United States during the first administration of Donald Trump, ed.) and normalizing relations with Israel.
However, according to experts, this is unrealistic as long as Israel rejects the sovereignty of the Palestinians. According to analysts, with this step, Trump is trying to show that he is not soft on Iran before the upcoming congressional elections (the so-called midterms).
Words without actions?
Despite the apocalyptic rhetoric, a US military attack on Oman is considered highly unlikely. Indeed, Omani experts perceive Trump’s words more as a manifestation of deep frustration and helplessness of Washington, which is unable to achieve a quick victory.
Moreover, a military strike against a longtime partner and trusted negotiator would completely eliminate any remaining US diplomatic options in the region and definitively isolate Washington from other Gulf states.
Oman is still officially silent. The coming weeks will show whether Trump’s sharp verbal outburst can push this traditionally neutral monarchy to definitively choose one of the sides.
