Iranian and Omani officials announced on August 5 that they had agreed on the geographic coordinates of a new shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz, with a joint declaration in its final stage of review and drafting, according to Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei [4][15][30]. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi stated that the new route would close two existing temporary routes, establish a joint coordination center, and operate for an initial two-to-four-month period, with large portions passing through Iranian territorial waters [21][36]. Oman's Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a joint statement confirming commitment to safe passage and the establishment of a joint working group [37].
US officials expressed optimism that a broader deal to reopen the strait could be reached within days. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said "there is a chance we may have a deal today or tomorrow to open the strait" [22][35]. Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that progress had been made but said "not finality yet," adding that the US hoped for a deal "very shortly" [12][25]. President Donald Trump told Fox News that talks were "moving along nicely" and that the strait would be open "very soon" [14][31]. Trump also warned that Iran would be "hit very hard" if the strait did not open, framing the reopening as a "first phase" ahead of nuclear discussions as a "second phase" [2][22][35].
Iranian officials denied that any direct negotiations with the United States were underway. Baghaei and other Iranian officials stated that the only talks in progress were with Oman over navigation arrangements [6][13][16]. Qatar's Foreign Ministry spokesperson Majed al-Ansari confirmed that diplomatic efforts were ongoing and had reached "very progressive stages," with mediators including Qatar, Pakistan, and Oman facilitating the exchange of draft proposals between Washington and Tehran, while stressing that no direct US-Iran talks were scheduled [27][33]. Trump accused Iran of acting hypocritically for denying the existence of conversations [13][31].
The proposed arrangement would give Iran control over ships entering the Gulf through the strait, according to a senior Iranian source and two regional officials [7][14]. Gharibabadi stated that the route is "designed in such a way that commercial ships will pass through Iranian territorial waters, both on the inbound and outbound legs" [7][14]. An ARD correspondent warned that the deal would "massively strengthen the Iranian regime" [20], and Gulf News described the emerging framework as giving Iran a degree of control that Washington had sought to prevent [41]. Iranian researcher Ali Akbar Dareini called the agreement Iran's "biggest military achievement of the war," stating that negotiations aim to "stabilise those achievements" rather than surrender them [17][36].
Washington rejected any Iranian toll collection or gatekeeping authority. Trump stated he would not allow Iran to charge fees, saying "if anybody's going to charge, we'll charge" [12][20]. A US official told AP that any temporary routes would not involve Iranian approvals or charges, and that the US remained committed to a system where "no party controls the lanes" [2][12]. Iran is reportedly seeking fees of 5 to 7 percent of cargo value, while Oman has discussed 3 percent and the US wants no fees [14][44]. Gulf negotiators have insisted that regional countries supervise ship inspections and that any fees be voluntary [14][40].
Foreign-policy analysts and former officials argued that Washington should accept a deal giving Iran an administrative role. Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute stated that "the central American interest in strategic waterways has historically been less about who administers them than about whether ships can pass through them freely, predictably and without discrimination" [2]. Former Pentagon official David Des Roches said "what's really needed here is some sort of agreement that leads to Iran formally announcing that it will cease to attack neutral civilian shipping" [2]. Responsible Statecraft drew parallels to the Suez Crisis, arguing that US interest lies in nondiscriminatory access rather than control [19].
Iranian officials qualified the announcement by stressing that the agreement alone would not guarantee safe navigation. Baghaei stated that "the factors making the Strait of Hormuz insecure still exist on the part of the United States, particularly the naval blockade and other aggressive and threatening actions against Iran" [5][30][36]. Iranian state media IRIB stated that the strait would remain closed if US violations continue [34]. US Central Command reported that it had redirected 44 commercial vessels, disabled two, and boarded two as part of its blockade as of August 3 [6]; a subsequent CENTCOM account raised the number of redirected vessels to 48 [36].
Violence on the water continued as the diplomatic track advanced. Houthi rebels claimed to have fired ballistic missiles at Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea off Yanbu and in the Gulf of Aden [11][30][18]. The UK Maritime Trade Operations reported that a tanker captain heard two explosions during transit in the strait near Oman [18]. An Indian-flagged commercial ship sank in the Red Sea after an unattributed attack, with Indian Shipping Minister Sarbananda Sonowal condemning the "unprovoked attack" [12]. Marine insurance industry sources reported that war-risk premiums for Hormuz transits rose to 7.5 to 10 percent of hull value after three incidents in 48 hours [49].
Legal analysts offered competing assessments of whether granting Iran or Oman control over strait access is compatible with international law. A Just Security analysis argued that any arrangement letting Iran charge fees or gatekeep access violates UNCLOS-based transit passage norms and could set a precedent for other chokepoints like the Taiwan Strait [42]. Turkish legal scholar Yücel Acer countered that because Iran never ratified UNCLOS, the transit passage regime may not apply, and Iran can only restrict passage within its own territorial waters [50].
Oil prices fell on deal optimism, with Brent crude dropping below $80 per barrel [18][28]. Analyst Aurélien Lux noted that oil fell below $80 a barrel supported by hopes of a strait reopening [18]. Danni Hewson of AJ Bell cautioned that "investors are acutely aware of how many times we've already been at this point in the war and how fragile the process of securing lasting agreements can be" [25]. Pimco portfolio manager Greg Sharenow stated the global market faces "without a doubt" a supply deficit [28]. Academics and industry figures argued the crisis's legacy would outlast any resolution, prompting countries from China to Japan to Pakistan to reduce reliance on a single maritime chokepoint [6][45][46][47].
President Masoud Pezeshkian conceded that communication with Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei is "very difficult" at the moment, while denying resignation rumors [5][12][18]. Reports described Khamenei as wounded in the war's opening strikes and unseen in public; France 24 reported his approval still awaited for the draft deal [11], while Iran International, citing Axios, reported that Khamenei had already approved a 60-day interim agreement [39]. A senior Gulf official told CNN there was a "50-50" chance of a deal on Friday, noting that the Iranian delegation does not include the voice of the IRGC [30][34].
UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq said the UN encourages parties to move forward with any effort for a negotiated solution [14], while UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk expressed alarm over rising executions in Iran [18]. France pursued a limited diplomatic role centered on Oman, including a joint demining operation; French diplomatic figures described Oman as a choice by default given France's weaker ties with Qatar [48]. A fisherman near the strait, identified as Ahmed, pleaded for a swift resolution: "It doesn't matter who gets the credit for making the deal; all we ask is that the sea be safe again" [12].
A joint declaration between Iran and Oman remains in its final drafting stage, pending no third-party interference, according to Iranian officials [30][36]. US officials continue to predict an announcement within days [11][31], while Gulf officials estimate the chance of finalization at roughly even odds [30][34].