Oman and Iran chart a shared course for Hormuz

The meeting in Muscat between Oman’s leadership and Iran’s senior delegation produced more than diplomatic courtesy. It began at the highest level, with His Majesty Sultan Haitham bin Tarik receiving Dr Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Speaker of the Islamic Consultative Assembly of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Dr Abbas Araghchi, Minister of Foreign Affairs. That audience set the tone. From the Palace to the Foreign Ministry, the message was consistent: treat the Strait of Hormuz not as a bargaining chip, but as a shared responsibility. By reaffirming support for the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding between the US and Iran, and by agreeing to a joint working group on navigation, Oman and Iran are trying to move the Strait from a flashpoint to a regulated waterway.
For years, the Strait has been discussed in terms of threats and red lines. This statement shifts the language toward administration, services, costs and international standards. It is the difference between asking “who controls it?” and asking “how do we run it safely for everyone?”
His Majesty’s meeting with the Iranian officials reinforced Oman’s long-standing approach: quiet mediation backed by legal principle. Oman backs dialogue between Washington and Tehran because instability in Hormuz hurts Oman first. Its coastline, ports and economy are directly exposed. But Oman also insists on a core principle that His Majesty’s audience underlined: any arrangement must fully respect the sovereignty and sovereign rights of Oman and Iran. That is not just legal language. It is Oman saying that solutions cannot be imposed from outside. If rules on pilotage, navigation support, or fees are set, they must be agreed by the states whose territorial waters the ships cross.
Iran’s emphasis on the same point during talks with His Majesty Sultan Haitham bin Tarik and with Sayyid Badr bin Hamad al Busaidy, Foreign Minister, creates rare alignment. Both sides describe themselves as “Coastal States of the Strait of Hormuz” and tie their commitment to safe passage directly to international law. This pairing is important. “Safe passage” satisfies global shipping and energy markets. “Sovereignty and sovereign rights” satisfies domestic audiences in both countries. By putting the two together, the statement tries to close the gap between international expectations and national control.
The practical piece is the joint working group between the two foreign ministries that was agreed after discussions with Sayyid Badr. Its mandate is technical but consequential: reach agreement on future administration of navigation, the services provided, and the costs, all “in accordance with international standards.” That wording opens the door for cooperation with the International Maritime Organization and for consultation with other littoral states. It also suggests Oman and Iran are thinking beyond crisis management. They are planning for the day-to-day: who guides ships, what safety services exist, how costs are shared, and how transparency is built in.
There are challenges ahead. “International standards” will mean different things to different capitals. Other Gulf states with coastlines near Hormuz will want a voice. Shipping companies will want predictability, not new fees without clarity. And the broader US-Iran context will still shape how fast technical talks move. But the decision to start with a bilateral working group, then expand to “littoral States in the region and any other relevant parties,” is a sensible sequence. Solve the basics between the two states most directly responsible, then widen the circle.
For Oman, the Palace audience with Ghalibaf and Araghchi followed by ministerial talks fits a long pattern: high-level political cover, then technical follow-up. Muscat does not seek headlines in the talks themselves. It seeks an outcome where ships move, revenues flow, and sovereignty is not compromised. For Iran, the statement offers a way to assert control over its waters while still committing to an open Strait. For the world, it offers a path where Hormuz is discussed in meeting rooms with charts and cost models, not only in security briefings.