Hormuz: Oman mediates between Iran and the US without a confirmed agreement

The Strait of Hormuz, the artery through which a decisive share of the world's energy supply flows, is once again at the centre of a quiet negotiation with an unexpected mediator: Oman. While US President Donald Trump declares that a deal could be reached soon, Tehran confines itself to talk of progress without setting any timetable. The gap between what each side says about the state of the talks is, in itself, the story.

Why it matters

Hormuz is not just any point on the map: it is the chokepoint through which a substantial portion of the oil and gas consumed by Europe and Asia passes. Any disruption to that traffic has an immediate effect on global energy prices, and Spain is no exception. The negotiation between Iran and Oman, with the declared involvement of the United States, is not a distant matter of exotic geopolitics: it is a variable that can affect the energy bill of any Spanish household.

The facts

What is confirmed, because it is asserted by sources from countries with opposing interests, is that bilateral negotiations are under way between Iran and Oman over the Strait of Hormuz. US President Donald Trump has declared that a deal could be reached soon. Names appear in the equation: Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and British minister Ed Miliband, which indicates that the negotiation has an international dimension and is not merely a bilateral matter between Muscat and Tehran.

The Strait of Hormuz connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and, from there, with the Indian Ocean. It is the only outlet to open sea for several of the world's largest oil producers. Its closure, or even the threat of closure, has historically been one of the greatest concerns of energy markets. That is why any news about its status automatically becomes a matter of global energy security.

Oman's involvement as mediator is no accident. The sultanate maintains diplomatic relations with both Iran and the United States, and has acted as an intermediary in the region on other occasions. Its geographical position, right at the mouth of the strait, also gives it a direct interest in ensuring that maritime traffic is not interrupted. The negotiation therefore has an internal logic: the party with the greatest need for Hormuz to function is the one sitting at the table.

What each side says

**Iran's official position:** Iranian state media, through the spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, maintain that the bilateral Iran-Oman talks on the Strait of Hormuz are progressing positively. That is Tehran's official formulation: progress, but with no concrete details on timetables or conditions. The caution of the language suggests that Iran does not want to commit publicly to a schedule it might not be able to keep.

**Australia:** the Australian press, specifically The Australian, claims that negotiators are close to a deal with Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz. This is the most optimistic of the three versions, and the one that offers the most specificity: it speaks not of progress but of an imminent agreement. Australia, as an exporter of energy resources with interests in global maritime security, has reasons to follow this negotiation closely.

**Arab press:** the Arab version introduces a nuance that the other two do not mention: Iran says it is close to a plan with Oman on Hormuz, but the reopening depends on the United States. In other words, the bilateral agreement would not be enough; Washington's approval would also be required. That condition does not appear in the Iranian or Australian versions, and it is precisely this discrepancy that turns the story into something more than a simple diplomatic advance.

The difference between the three versions is not a problem to be resolved, but the story itself. That Iran speaks of progress, Australia of an imminent deal, and the Arab press of an American condition does not mean one is lying and the others are not. It means that each side has a different interest in how the state of the negotiations is presented, and the reader deserves to know that.

What the machine says

To cross-check these versions, a sensor independent of any government was consulted: the community network of ADS-B receivers, which tracks aircraft transponder signals. The sensor was directed at the maritime corridor of the Strait of Hormuz, with the aim of detecting air movements that might indicate unusual activity in the area. The result was that no records were obtained in the window reviewed. The source was unavailable due to a technical error in the service, so the absence of data can be interpreted neither as a sign of calm nor as a sign of activity. It is, simply, an information gap worth noting.

Air traffic is an indirect indicator: if a high-level diplomatic operation were under way, one would reasonably expect to see official aircraft movements in the area. But the absence of records proves nothing, because the sensor returned no data due to a technical fault, not because there was no traffic. The automatic identification system for ships, which would be the most direct indicator for measuring maritime traffic, was not checked because it requires paid access that was not used.

What we do not know

The list of what we do not know is considerable. We do not know whether the negotiations are as advanced as the Australian press suggests, or whether the "positive progress" Iran speaks of is more modest than it appears. We do not know what concrete role the United States plays in the mediation, nor whether the condition mentioned by the Arab press is real or an interpretation. We do not know how much room for manoeuvre Oman has to bring Tehran and Washington closer together. And we do not know whether a deal, if reached, would involve a full reopening of the strait or a partial arrangement.

What we do know is that the Strait of Hormuz remains one of the most sensitive arteries of the global energy system, and that there are three different versions of the state of a negotiation that affects that artery. Prudence counsels against taking for granted a deal that no one has officially confirmed, but it also counsels against ruling one out. The difference between what is said and what is known is, in this case, the story.

The immediate future will tell whether Washington's optimism translates into a verifiable agreement, or whether the talks drag on like so many others in the region. In the meantime, the Spanish reader should know that what happens in that distant strait can reach their electricity bill, and that the versions in circulation are not unanimous. On that, as on almost everything, it is wise to read carefully and distrust neat headlines.

Piece written and translated automatically from cross-checked sources in several countries.