Can an indirect Hormuz channel become a wider peace deal?
Iran says it is seeking an understanding with Oman for a temporary shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz, but it denies direct negotiations with Washington even as US President Donald Trump says talks are resuming and has called off planned strikes.[2] Analysts describe the danger to regional oil tankers as the worst since the Iran war began, and Tehran says no agreement to restore normal traffic is imminent.[1]
Hormuz carried about a fifth of the world’s traded oil and gas before the war, making access to the strait both a strategic bargaining tool and a global economic pressure point.[7] Trump’s announcement alone pushed Brent crude down 4.5% to $83.98 and US-traded oil down 4.6% to $80.74, showing how strongly markets react to even tentative diplomatic signals.[2]
Key insights
- The parties are describing different diplomatic processes: Trump has presented negotiations as a route toward deals on Hormuz and Iran’s nuclear programme, while Iran says its current channel is with Oman and excludes the US.[2]
- Iran’s leadership is split between ultra-hardliners seeking total victory and figures aligned with President Masoud Pezeshkian and Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf who see military pressure as leverage for a negotiated settlement.[7]
- The April ceasefire collapsed amid renewed strikes, Iran’s frustration over unrealized financial promises and the restoration of the American blockade, illustrating why announcements alone may not sustain a deal.[2][7]