Oman shelves the Salalah talks, and the only account of the Hormuz deal remains Tehran’s

The Financial Times reported on 11 September, citing two people briefed on the matter, that Gulf Arab foreign ministers were expected to meet Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Salalah on 14 September, at Omani initiative, with diplomats cautioning that details were still being finalised. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Tehran would “brief the delegations about the results of the Iran and Oman consultations regarding the safe passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz.” Al Jazeera reported Bahrain was not attending. Araghchi told the London-based Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, in remarks carried by IRNA, that the session would focus “exclusively” on maritime arrangements and that Iran would “provide the participating countries with the details of the agreement with Oman and the maps related to the new route” — while insisting the arrangement does not “in any way” signal the strait will reopen.

What the meeting was for is itself disputed. CNBC reported on 13 September that a senior Iranian government official and a Gulf diplomat told MS NOW the parties would meet in Muscat on Monday to sign an agreement establishing an Iran-Oman shipping route; the same official said there are no current negotiations with the United States. That is two anonymous sources, one from each side, via a single outlet — and Iran’s own foreign minister described a briefing, not a signature. By 13-14 September it was off. Oman’s state news agency said the delay was for “constructive dialogue” producing lasting understandings supporting regional security; Mohammad Ali Bak, Iran’s director general for Gulf affairs, told IRNA the postponement followed a request from “some regional countries,” with Tehran and Muscat agreeing jointly to reschedule.

Everything known about the arrangement’s contents comes from Iranian officials or Iranian state media. Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi told IRNA the route is “temporary,” running two to four months, with a significant share of traffic in Iranian territorial waters, and that it “does not mean the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz”; state media, citing a person familiar, tied any opening to “a change in US behavior.” NPR, citing Iranian state media on 7 August, reported Tehran’s account that the deal bans American and Israeli vessels and fines violators. i24NEWS, citing Iranian statements, described entry near the Iranian coast, exit along the Omani side and toll-free transit during a transitional period. Meanwhile UKMTO Warning 134-26, distributed via Windward, recorded a vessel struck by an unknown projectile near Limah, Oman, at roughly 2300 UTC on 12 September — fire, crew evacuation, no casualties. Iranian state media said a separate attack off Qeshm killed one and wounded four.

Assessment: A postponement announced in two different voices is a postponement with two different causes. Muscat’s “conditions not in place” and Tehran’s “request from some regional countries” are compatible sentences describing incompatible politics, and Bahrain’s absence from the guest list was reported before either. The deeper problem for anyone pricing risk off this thread: the Iran-Oman text has never been released, so every attribute assigned to it — the coastal route, the two-to-four-month clock, the ban on US and Israeli vessels — is Tehran describing its own arrangement. Note too the traffic data everyone is quoting. The 13-vessels-a-day average is from 3 September, and twelve-day-old transit counts are not a current picture of the strait.