Iran wants control over inbound shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and visibility over outbound traffic under a temporary plan discussed with Oman to reopen the strategic waterway, according to a senior Iranian source. Tehran has rejected a 50-50 corridor split and a voluntary-fee proposal, demanding expanded oversight as talks remain uncertain.
The Strait of Hormuz—the narrow waterway between the Gulf and the Indian Ocean that carries about a fifth of global oil supplies and vital goods such as fertilizers—remains a central sticking point in efforts to resolve the war. Blockaded since the conflict began in late February, the 21-mile-wide passage is now the center of a high-stakes dispute over maritime authority, security guarantees, and international law.
Iran Rejects Oman-Backed Malacca Plan and Outlines Counter-Proposals
Diplomatic efforts led by Oman, which has served as a primary back-channel between Tehran and Western powers, hit a wall when Iran formally rejected a Gulf-backed proposal modeled on the Strait of Malacca. The Omani plan, supported by Saudi Arabia and discussed during meetings in July, called for an equal division of transit routes and voluntary contributions to a shared navigation and safety fund. Under the Malacca framework used in Southeast Asia since 2007, operators make optional payments to cover hydrographic surveys and search-and-rescue aids without paying transit tolls, a structure protected by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Georgetown University professor Paul Musgrave, speaking to Al Jazeera, pointed out the stark financial gap between the proposals. The Malacca model raises roughly $70 million a year in voluntary contributions, whereas Tehran had separately proposed charging a mandatory service fee
of about $1 million per vessel, Musgrave noted to Al Jazeera. At pre-conflict volumes of roughly 130 ships daily, Iran’s mandatory toll framework could have generated revenues exceeding $40 billion annually.
Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi publicly dismissed the 50-50 corridor split and a floated three-lane concept, arguing they failed to address Tehran’s security requirements. We said this would not resolve Iran’s concerns,
Gharibabadi stated on state television, as reported by Iran International.
Inbound Control Demands and Omani-Side Oversight
Under a temporary plan currently under discussion, Iran wants control over inbound shipping and visibility over outbound traffic, retaining the ability to intervene if necessary. According to a senior Iranian source involved in the talks, outbound traffic would follow a route between Iran and Oman, with exit clearance granted through Oman after notifying Iran. Iran has also proposed extending its controlled zone to cover the Omani side of the waterway.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei and Deputy Foreign Minister Gharibabadi have maintained that Tehran’s stance reflects hard-fought security gains. Gharibabadi told state broadcaster IRIB that one shipping lane should fall within Iranian territorial waters and part of the opposing lane should also be included in Iranian waters, effectively securing oversight in both directions.
“Iran’s policy is that the Strait of Hormuz will never return to its pre-war state. If the strait reverts to what it was before the war, our success in this conflict will be incomplete.”
Kazem Gharibabadi, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister, via biz.heraldcorp.com
Gharibabadi added that the strait serves as a vital instrument of national defense, warning that every European vessel approaching the waterway is a legitimate target and stating that if Oman rejects the proposal, the strait will remain closed.
Legal Stalemates and the Clash Over International Maritime Law
The dispute over traffic separation and lane management exposes a fundamental legal rift. Before the conflict, shipping passed freely through the strait under a two-way traffic separation scheme adopted by the UN shipping agency in 1968 with regional agreement. Washington maintains that the June memorandum of understanding required Iran to reopen the waterway, whereas Tehran insists the text explicitly protected its authority over shipping traffic.
Legal experts note that UNCLOS Articles 37 through 44 guarantee transit passage through international straits used for international navigation without impediment or suspension during armed conflict, while Articles 26, 38, and 44 prohibit coastal states from charging passage fees. Tehran’s insistence on mandatory fees and territorial control directly challenges those international norms.
Stakes for Global Energy Markets and Future Talks
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has eliminated roughly 70% of normal shipping traffic, according to Kpler vessel-tracking data, leaving a 60-day window established by the June 17 Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding with only about 19 days remaining. The prolonged blockade has kept energy markets jittery.
With talks between Iran and the United States remaining uncertain and Tehran dismissing prospects for new negotiations due to past broken promises, the reopening of the vital corridor depends entirely on whether Oman and Iran can bridge the gap over territorial control before the expiration of the diplomatic window.
Worth a look
Discover more from Archyworldys
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.