Oman and Qatar edge toward a Hormuz corridor while the White House insists no talks exist

On Tuesday 25 August the Iranian and Omani foreign ministries issued a joint statement describing an “interim framework” for resuming transits: a temporary shipping corridor plus mine clearance, with talks continuing on a permanent corridor and long-term management of the strait. No final deal was announced and no fees were mentioned. Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi, after meeting Abbas Araghchi’s ministry, said he hoped a temporary corridor could soon be announced and that Oman would engage regional states in support of freedom of navigation. Qatar’s Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani, discussed the proposed corridor with Araghchi by phone the same day and travelled to Tehran on Thursday 27 August. Araghchi posted on X on Friday that “putting diplomacy back on track isn’t impossible,” calling the Qatari talks “creative.”

The furthest-reaching claim came not from a diplomat but from the IRGC. On Wednesday 26 August its spokesman, Hossein Mohebbi, told the state-run Sepah News agency that “agreements have been reached regarding each country’s share of the strait’s waters as well as Iran and Oman’s share of its revenues,” adding that “the US is obstructing this process, causing progress to be delayed.” Araghchi has not confirmed the revenue-sharing element and Oman’s foreign ministry did not respond to Bloomberg’s request for comment. It matters because revenue-sharing on transits is a toll regime under another name, and a toll regime in an international strait is a UNCLOS transit-passage question. Bloomberg has reported, on anonymous sourcing, that Iran charged some vessels transit fees early in the conflict and later reframed them as service fees; Oman told the UN’s shipping agency in July that it opposes transit fees in the strait.

Washington’s public position is that none of this is happening. Trump said last week the US is “not in a hurry” over talks, and the White House told Al Jazeera on 28–29 August that no talks are taking place or scheduled, that the blockade remains fully active and that the strait is de-mined and safe. Tehran’s price is compliance with the June memorandum brokered by Qatar and Pakistan — sanctions relief, an end to the blockade of Iranian ports, unfrozen assets — and Washington has signalled readiness on none of it. The pressure is measurable at the other end: President Masoud Pezeshkian says sanctions and the blockade have cut Iran’s foreign trade by nearly 35 percent, a figure reported in The New Arab’s live file for which the venue and baseline period could not be established. Arvand Petrochemical has been suspended since 22 August on National Petrochemical Company instructions to cut power use.

Assessment: The interesting split is inside Tehran, not between Tehran and Washington. A joint statement that mentions no fees and an IRGC statement that announces revenue shares are two different negotiating positions, and the Guard’s version pre-empts the foreign ministry it claims to speak alongside. Watch for whether Araghchi or Al Busaidi ever put a number to it; if they do not, Mohebbi was talking to a domestic audience. Note also what a corridor with revenues would cost Oman legally, having told the IMO in July it opposes transit fees. Washington’s “no talks” line is cheap while the sanctions arithmetic runs in its favour.