Oman’s Hormuz balancing act

The official visit of Sultan Haitham bin Tariq to France marks a defining moment in Oman’s contemporary diplomacy and reflects the growing strategic importance of the Sultanate. It is the first official visit by an Omani ruler to France since Sultan Qaboos bin Said’s historic trip in 1989, highlighting a renewed effort to elevate bilateral relations at a time when regional security has become inseparable from global economic stability.

Beyond the extensive economic agreements signed during the visit, discussions between Sultan Haitham and French President Emmanuel Macron centered overwhelmingly on one issue: the future of the Strait of Hormuz. The latter has become the focal point of post-conflict negotiations following the recent Iran-United States (U.S.) confrontation. The debate is no longer confined to reopening the waterway but increasingly concerns who will manage it, under what legal framework, and whether new service charges or security arrangements could reshape one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes.

The Strait of Hormuz: from security crisis to governance debate

Despite the broad bilateral agenda, the Strait of Hormuz dominated the strategic dialogue between Paris and Muscat. Following weeks of military armed conflict between Iran and the U.S., the reopening and future governance of the strait have emerged as one of the most contentious issues in Gulf diplomacy.

Approximately one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas exports traditionally transit through the Strait of Hormuz, making uninterrupted navigation essential for international energy markets. Although a preliminary understanding between Washington and Tehran temporarily restored commercial shipping, disagreements persist regarding future management arrangements, maritime security responsibilities, and Iran’s proposal to introduce fees for certain maritime services.

France has taken a particularly active role by advocating an international maritime security framework aimed at guaranteeing freedom of navigation. During the visit, Macron and Sultan Haitham issued a joint declaration reaffirming their commitment to unrestricted maritime transit in accordance with international law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The two leaders also agreed to cooperate with international partners on future demining operations designed to secure shipping lanes and facilitate the complete reopening of the strait.

Oman’s delicate balancing act

No country faces a more complex diplomatic challenge than Oman. Sharing the Strait of Hormuz with Iran while maintaining close partnerships with Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, the U.S., and European powers, Muscat must carefully balance competing strategic interests.

In this complex context, Iranian officials announced the first meeting of the Joint Hormuz Committee with Oman, established under provisions contained in the preliminary U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding. Discussions reportedly focused on future management of maritime services and coordination between the two coastal states.

Initially, joint Iranian-Omani statements appeared to leave open the possibility of introducing charges related to maritime services. However, Oman subsequently clarified its position. Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad al-Busaidi explicitly rejected the idea of imposing transit fees on vessels crossing the strait, stressing that any future arrangements must remain fully consistent with international law and preserve freedom of navigation.

The minister nevertheless distinguished between transit fees and payments for optional maritime services such as navigation assistance, pollution prevention, and maritime safety improvements. Drawing comparisons with the Strait of Malacca and the Singapore Strait, he argued that service-based contributions could be considered provided they remain voluntary, transparent, and internationally accepted.

This nuanced position reflects Oman’s effort to reconcile Iranian proposals with international legal obligations while preserving its reputation as a neutral mediator.

International law and competing interpretations

The legal framework governing the Strait of Hormuz remains central to ongoing disagreements. Under UNCLOS, international straits used for global navigation are subject to the regime of transit passage, guaranteeing ships and aircraft the right to continuous and expeditious passage without interference. International customary law similarly prohibits coastal states from closing international straits or imposing fees merely for transit. The U.S., France, and most maritime powers therefore reject any proposal that would require commercial vessels to pay transit charges simply for using the strait.

Iran, however, has sought to distinguish between transit itself and additional maritime services, arguing that coastal states possess sovereign rights to participate in managing navigation and providing safety-related services. Tehran also maintains that the preliminary understanding reached with Washington recognizes future dialogue with Oman regarding maritime administration, an interpretation that American officials have disputed.

Meanwhile, disagreements have extended beyond legal theory into operational matters. Oman recently coordinated with the United Nations (UN) to establish a temporary southern maritime corridor through its territorial waters, prompting criticism from Tehran, which insists that vessels should continue using routes adjacent to the Iranian coastline. Iranian officials have warned against alternative navigation arrangements while asserting that mine-clearing operations should remain exclusively under Iranian responsibility.

Hence, Oman now occupies an increasingly pivotal position between competing regional and international interests. Its ability to maintain dialogue with Tehran while preserving close partnerships with Western powers places it at the center of efforts to secure one of the world’s most strategically important waterways. Whether negotiations ultimately produce a durable framework for maritime governance will depend not only on legal interpretations but also on the willingness of all stakeholders to prioritize stability, freedom of navigation, and diplomatic compromise over geopolitical confrontation.