Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by thisislife2 6 hours ago
> “The MOU was a one-and-a-half-page document where ambiguity was the feature and not the bug,” he explained. “There was a lot of ambiguity to be filled in later.” ... Erye said Iran agreed to allow traffic to resume — but under its administration and with its permission. That clashed with the US vision for the strait.

As the US Diplomat points out the MoU is ambiguous about many things, but section 5 of the MoU is clear that Iran agreed to allow shipping only under its administration, at least for the 60 days period (with passage in the future to be negotiated later):

> 5. Upon the signing of this MoU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels, with no charge for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman, and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles, and de-mining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman, to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz, in discussions with other Persian Gulf Littoral States, in line with applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.

An Iranian diplomat has also reiterated this - Senior Iranian diplomat says ceasefire agreement with US requires ships passing the strait of Hormuz to coordinate with Iran - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2026/jun/26/trump-n... .
1 comments
ggm 5 hours ago
Where is Oman in this? Where does the concept of territorial waters, exclusive economic zones go in a narrow straight? What does this mean for the straights of Malacca, Luzon?
link
thisislife2 4 hours ago
Oman is small state in the region with not much influence other than what the regional and superpowers allow it.

It was diplomatically smart for Iran to rope in Oman on its future plans for the administration of the Strait as the involvement of multiple states makes it a more regional security-economic undertaking, giving it more credence and making it harder to oppose at least some aspect of the arrangement. (Oman can't really say no here as Iran is a regional power with whom it does have to cooperate and share the Strait).

The US has tried to outmanoeuvre Iran by pressuring Oman to not cooperate with Iran and join its own "regional" system of administrating the Strait, that excludes Iran. (Oman, again has no choice here as it cannot say no to a superpower). And so we now see Oman announcing a temporary parallel "transit corridor" within the Strait (perhaps as a precursor to this), with the International Maritime Organization. Here IMO has been made the authority that ships will communicate with to go through the Strait. The temporary association with IMO is to give Muscat some diplomatic cover from Iran which is naturally all pissed about this, as it recognises that the whole idea particularly seeks to undermine what was stated in the Islamabad MoU - that Iran will coordinate the passage of ships during the 60 days.

(That is why this recent firing, and retaliation, occurred. Iran has already won a temporary minor victory as IMO has now announced that it is temporarily backing out. But the US has gained a good advantage too now as this places Iran in a very difficult position on how to deal with Oman and future negotiations on the Strait).

As the weaker party, Oman is just going along for the ride and trying hard not to get caught between the Israel / US and Iran political and military confrontation. As far as it is concerned, if Tehran manages to pull this off, Muscat will also benefit economically and politically. If Washington pulls its off, Muscat will still benefit politically as it will control the Strait (by proxy for the US). If both fail, Muscat still benefits as status quo remains while its ties with both countries improves and its own regional standing increases a bit due to the increased international exposure from all this activity.

----

As for what it means for the future of maritime routes, note that historically tolls along certain routes / Straits was quite common before the west became a maritime and imperial power. The only reason that they abolished it is because the imperial powers did most of the trading (and the west still does) and so they paid the most tolls. Today too, the west would have to pay a lot more on tolls and that is why they continue opposing it, as do some other emerging economies. But if you favour capitalism, why shouldn't a country be allowed to charge a toll - what makes a narrow sea route, under sovereign control, different from a land route?

----

1. Oman, Iran form ‘joint working group’ on future management of Strait of Hormuz - https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260623-oman-iran-form-jo...

2. Strait of Hormuz as strategic red line: Why Iran must confront Oman's corridor plan and Trump's threats - https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/06/25/771078/strait-hormu...

3. Oman with IMO announces transit corridor in Strait of Hormuz - https://thepeninsulaqatar.com/article/24/06/2026/oman-with-i...

4. IMO pauses evacuation in Strait of Hormuz following attack - https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/pressbriefings/pages/stat...

5. Freedom of Navigation - https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-three/

link