Oman and Iran have agreed to pursue discussions on the potential future administration of the Strait of Hormuz, asserting their “sovereignty and sovereign rights over their territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz,” the two countries said in a joint statement following talks on Tuesday.
The statement marks a notable shift for Oman, which has largely remained silent amid a stream of declarations by Iranian officials regarding Tehran’s claims over the waterway and proposals for shared administration with Muscat.
The two countries emphasized “their sovereignty and sovereign rights over their territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz” and “agreed to maintain their dialogue on this issue through a joint working group between the two foreign ministries in order to reach agreement on the future administration of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and the services that will be provided in this regard and the costs associated with them in accordance with international standards.”
Unlike Tehran, which has demanded navigational fees and other payments throughout the conflict, Oman Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi said the countries were committed to “toll-free safe passage” through Hormuz.
US President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that Iran told the United States that no tolls were being sought from ships traveling through the Strait of Hormuz.
As previously reported by The Jerusalem Post, experts – like military historian Dr. Lynette Nusbacher – have claimed that Iran’s attempts to push for a navigational fee for the safe crossing of Hormuz is simply a legal cover for the regime to charge a toll.
Under Articles 38 and 44 of UNCLOS, bordering Iran and Oman cannot suspend, impede, or charge tolls for vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz. This comes even though Iran is not a signatory to the convention, but the convention permits countries to charge fees for services provided.
Despite this, Trump claimed on Wednesday that “Iran has informed the US that, despite troublemaking Fake News reporting to the contrary, there are ‘NO TOLLS, NO INSURANCE COSTS, & NO OTHER CHARGES OF ANY KIND BEING SOUGHT OR RECEIVED BY IRAN ON SHIPS TRAVELING THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ…
“If this is false information, negotiations would end, immediately!”
Iran's rules and regulations for Strait of Hormuz
In conflict with Trump’s statements are the current terms published in Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority “PGSA Passage Rules and Regulations,” which ship owners are expected to agree to before being given permission to cross the strait, according to Iranian demands.
Viewed by The Jerusalem Post, the regulations insist that Iran “reserves the right to enforce penalties, revoke permissions or take further legal action” if ships fail to comply with PGSA orders, and that the “PGSA reserves the right to introduce insurance fees in the future.”
Prof. Michael Clarke, a prominent British defense analyst, academic, and former director-general of the Royal United Services Institute, told the Post earlier this week that such plans would be illegal under international law.
Speaking to the Post on Wednesday, Emma Salisbury, a senior fellow in the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s National Security Program and an associate fellow at the Royal Navy Strategic Studies Centre, said that the talks between Oman and Iran do not mean that the countries have reached a legally settled framework.
“As the two coastal states bordering the Strait of Hormuz, Iran and Oman do have a recognized role in managing navigation services, but the strait is subject to right of passage under UNCLOS and under customary international law binding on all states.
“Any arrangement that imposes conditions, fees, or selective access requirements on shipping would face a serious legal challenge,” she asserted.
Notably, the PGSA has previously stated it would prohibit ships with ties to Israel, which may in itself be a violation of UNCLOS.
Operations in Strait of Hormuz will change
Outside of the financial benefits that administering Hormuz could provide Iran, should it pursue tolls, navigational fees, or private insurance from vessels, Salisbury told the Post that Iran could be handed “a legitimate institutional basis for requiring advance notification, identification, and routing compliance from commercial shipping, data that would be operationally significant in any future confrontation.”
She noted that during the recent conflict, Iran exploited its “positional awareness to target and board vessels selectively.”
“Embedding that capability within a governance framework rather than exercising it through naked coercion would make it far harder to contest legally or diplomatically, and would also complicate US naval operations in a conflict scenario by blurring the line between civilian maritime administration and military-intelligence activity,” she warned.
Though Iran’s constant insistence on Oman’s involvement in the administration of the strait has been documented, Salisbury said it could also be “genuinely stabilizing” for a region currently fearful that the Islamic Republic would close Hormuz as a pressure tactic as frequently as it may like.
“Oman has a material and strategic interest in keeping the strait open, it has historically maintained working relationships with both Iran and Western powers, and its participation creates at least some external constraint on Iran’s freedom of maneuver,” she explained.
However, she warned that “Oman cannot compel Iranian behavior, and Tehran will retain the physical and military capacity to close or coerce the strait regardless of any administrative arrangement.”