US President Donald Trump launched his military campaign against Iran with the declared aim of securing “unconditional surrender” from Tehran. Months later, the White House finds itself negotiating not over nuclear centrifuges or ballistic missiles, but over a single question: who controls the Strait of Hormuz.
In a stark acknowledgment of how dramatically the conflict’s parameters have shifted, US demands have progressively narrowed from comprehensive capitulation to a modest understanding that would restore freedom of navigation through one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints, the Financial Times has learned.
The Strategic Retreat
What began as a campaign to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, eliminate its ballistic missile arsenal, and sever its support for regional resistance movements has been reduced to a humbling diplomatic exercise. The US administration has spoken for months about being “close to an agreement,” but any potential deal would fall dramatically short of Washington’s original war objectives.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio articulated this downward trajectory in stark terms: “The ultimate deal is the denuclearization of Iran, while the immediate deal is the Strait of Hormuz.”
Critics have described this evolution as a “strategic humiliation” for Washington. Iran, which only weaponized the Strait after the conflict began, now commands significant leverage over the world’s most important oil transit route—a bargaining position the United States had not anticipated when it first engaged militarily.
The Price of Escalation
The political calculus for the President grows more precarious by the day. With gasoline prices exceeding $4 per gallon and diesel costs surpassing levels recorded during the Biden administration, the economic toll of the war is becoming impossible to ignore. These figures come as US military stockpiles dwindle and midterm congressional elections approach—a confluence of pressures that makes any viable exit strategy politically radioactive.
“The administration will not be able to secure an agreement that it can present to the American public as a genuine victory,” said Aaron David Miller, a former US negotiator, speaking to the Financial Times. “What was once an open maritime passage is no longer so.”
The Omani Gambit
As Washington’s options narrow, attention has shifted to Muscat. Ongoing negotiations between Iran and Oman regarding the management of navigation in the Strait have become the focal point of diplomatic efforts, with the United States receiving continuous briefings through intermediaries.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ismail Baghaei confirmed that Tehran and Muscat are developing protocols to regulate maritime traffic, describing any arrangements at this stage as temporary pending a final agreement.
Proposed arrangements would see ships entering the Strait pass through Iranian waters and exit through Omani waters. In the initial phase, Iran would assume responsibility for ensuring safe passage and verifying the waterways are clear of mines before the Strait is reopened to international navigation.
Iran has indicated it would impose fees for maritime traffic management services, while Oman has proposed a model similar to the Strait of Malacca arrangement, based on voluntary contributions to support navigational safety and environmental protection.
Source: The Financial Time