Iran Sets New Rules in the Strait of Hormuz

A New Chapter in Hormuz: Iran Asserts Dominance After US Deal

Iran announced on Monday that it had convened its first high-level meeting with Oman focused on managing navigation and security protocols in the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint through which nearly 20% of the world's oil supply passes. The meeting, which follows a recently signed preliminary agreement to end hostilities in the broader Middle East conflict with the United States, signals a potentially seismic shift in how one of the globe's most strategically sensitive waterways will be governed going forward.

The development has drawn immediate attention from energy analysts, diplomats, and security experts worldwide. Barbara Slavin, a Distinguished Fellow at the Stimson Center in Washington, D.C., framed the situation with stark clarity in an interview with FRANCE 24: "The United States is trying to establish the old rules of the road in the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran has made it very clear that there are new rules."

The Strategic Significance of the Strait of Hormuz

The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway separating Iran from the Arabian Peninsula — specifically Oman and the United Arab Emirates — is the world's most important oil transit chokepoint. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), approximately 17 to 21 million barrels of oil pass through the strait daily, representing roughly one-fifth of global petroleum liquids consumption. Any disruption to navigation in this 33-mile-wide passage could instantly rattle global energy markets and trigger cascading economic consequences from Tokyo to Toronto.

Iran has historically used the threat of closing the Strait of Hormuz as a geopolitical leverage tool, particularly during periods of heightened tensions with the United States and its Gulf Arab allies. Tehran has periodically seized tankers, harassed commercial vessels, and conducted naval exercises near the strait — all intended to underscore its capability and willingness to disrupt global energy flows if pushed to the brink.

Oman's Critical Role as a Bridge Between Rivals

Oman has long served as one of the most effective mediators in the region, maintaining diplomatic channels with both Iran and Western nations even during the most turbulent periods of Middle Eastern geopolitics. Muscat has historically facilitated back-channel communications between Tehran and Washington, including during the early stages of what eventually became the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear negotiations.

Its inclusion in the current Hormuz discussions is therefore both symbolic and practical. As a co-riparian state to the strait, Oman has a direct stake in the stability and governance of these waters. The choice to involve Oman in the inaugural post-deal talks suggests that Iran is seeking a degree of international legitimacy for whatever new framework it is proposing — one that goes beyond bilateral discussions with Washington and engages neutral regional actors.

What Are the 'New Rules' Iran Is Proposing?

While the precise contents of Iran's proposed new framework have not been fully disclosed, analysts suggest that Tehran is pushing for a fundamentally different governance model for the strait — one that grants Iran greater authority over navigation protocols, potentially requiring prior notification or permission for certain categories of vessels, particularly military ships from non-regional powers.

This could represent a direct challenge to the longstanding principle of freedom of navigation upheld by the United States Navy, which has maintained a consistent presence in the Persian Gulf through the U.S. Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain. Washington has traditionally interpreted international maritime law — specifically the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) — as guaranteeing the right of transit passage through international straits, a position Iran has repeatedly contested.

Iranian officials have previously argued that the Strait of Hormuz is not an international waterway in the conventional sense, but rather a body of water that falls under the sovereign jurisdiction of its two riparian states: Iran and Oman. Under this interpretation, non-regional naval forces could be subject to restrictions that current international norms do not impose.

Washington's Dilemma: Old Norms vs. New Realities

The United States finds itself navigating a profound tension in the post-deal environment. On one hand, the preliminary peace agreement with Iran represents a significant diplomatic achievement that the Biden and successive administrations have pursued with varying degrees of intensity. On the other hand, accepting Iranian dominance over Hormuz governance would set a precedent that could fundamentally alter the balance of power in the Persian Gulf and undermine decades of U.S. maritime strategy.

American allies in the region — particularly Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel — will be watching these developments with acute concern. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states have long relied on the U.S. security umbrella to balance Iran's influence. Any arrangement that effectively grants Tehran veto power over maritime activity in the strait could be interpreted as an abandonment of U.S. commitments to Gulf security.

Energy Markets and Global Economic Implications

The potential restructuring of Hormuz governance arrives at a particularly sensitive moment for global energy markets. With ongoing instability in global supply chains, the post-pandemic energy price surge still fresh in economic memory, and major economies still adjusting to the aftershocks of the Russia-Ukraine conflict on energy supplies, any uncertainty regarding Hormuz transit could send oil prices soaring.

Energy traders and analysts have already begun pricing in a risk premium associated with the uncertainty surrounding the new maritime framework. If Iran successfully establishes greater control over the strait — even informally — it would represent a significant strengthening of OPEC's largest non-Arab member's geopolitical leverage over global oil markets.

Historical Precedents and Regional Reactions

This is not the first time Iran has sought to reshape the rules governing the strait. During the Tanker War of the 1980s, when Iran and Iraq attacked each other's oil tankers during their devastating eight-year conflict, the United States intervened militarily through Operation Earnest Will to escort Kuwaiti tankers re-flagged as American vessels through the Persian Gulf. The episode demonstrated both Washington's willingness to use force to protect freedom of navigation and Iran's capacity to disrupt maritime commerce.

More recently, Iran's seizure of multiple commercial vessels between 2019 and 2023 — including tankers linked to the UK, Greece, and other nations — demonstrated Tehran's continued willingness to use the strait as a pressure valve in its broader confrontations with Western powers. Each incident served as a reminder of Iran's asymmetric leverage in the region.

Regional Arab states, particularly those in the GCC, have reacted with a mixture of cautious optimism regarding the broader peace deal and deep unease about Iran's apparent ambitions to formalize its control over Hormuz. Several Gulf diplomats, speaking on background, have expressed concern that a weakened U.S. posture in the strait could embolden Iran to press additional territorial and political claims throughout the region.

Looking Ahead: Diplomacy at a Crossroads

The coming weeks and months will be critical in determining whether the Iran-Oman talks on Hormuz management produce a workable framework that balances Iranian ambitions with international maritime norms, or whether they become a flashpoint for renewed tensions. The involvement of Oman offers some grounds for cautious optimism — Muscat's skilled diplomacy has defused crises before. But the fundamental gap between Iran's vision of a regionally governed strait and the United States' insistence on universal freedom of navigation remains wide.

As Barbara Slavin's pointed analysis suggests, the contest is not merely over shipping lanes — it is over the fundamental architecture of Middle Eastern security. Whether the world accepts Iran's new rules will have implications that extend far beyond the thirty-three miles of blue water between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.