Fresh dispute emerges over Strait of Hormuz transit routes despite ceasefire

Though U.S. President Donald Trump has been repeatedly saying the war is over, conflicts over the Strait of Hormuz are still playing out, albeit without the use of force. The MoU signed between the U.S. and Iran says Iran will conduct a dialogue with Oman, the other littoral state of the strait — considered to be among the few allies Iran has in the region — over the future administration of the strait.

But Iran has indicated that no talks have taken place between the two sides on the issue. Both sides have gone ahead and unilaterally announced plans for the temporary period of ship transit envisaged as covering a 60-day period.

On Thursday (June 25), the Naval Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) warned that vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz must use only the routes officially designated by Iran, as per a report by the Islamic Republic News Agency. The agency referred to “a new shipping route [that] had been announced by certain authorities without prior consultation with Tehran.”

Two days ago, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) announced an evacuation plan for stranded ships and seafarers in the Persian Gulf that referred to a plan by Oman. Arsenio Dominguez, Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), had said: “This large-scale operation will be carried out in close cooperation with Iran, Oman, and all other coastal states in the region, the United States, and the maritime industry.” But Iran has now issued a disclaimer to this.

A press conference to be addressed by Mr. Dominguez on Thursday was cancelled at the last minute.

He was expected to address the disparities in the two versions and the fact that the IMO statement referred only to the Oman plan.

The Oman plan did not refer to Iran by name and only indicated a route along its coast that ships could take while transiting. It, however, said the traditional route at the centre of the strait, which some 130 ships used every day to transit the strait, was not safe, referring to mines laid there, and indicated the “northern” route, referring to the Iranian route.

‘Dangerous route’

In a statement issued early Thursday, the IRGC Navy described the newly announced route as “unacceptable and extremely dangerous,” stressing that it had been introduced without the knowledge or coordination of Iranian authorities.

Since the announcement of the ceasefire, ships had started trickling out through the northern route along Iran with its permission and in coordination with the IRGC Navy.

Several weeks later, however, ships started transiting the strait along a southern route near Oman in coordination with the U.S. Navy. When the war started, it was estimated that some 1,000 to 1,500 ships were stranded west of the Strait of Hormuz. The IMO had indicated that more than 20,000 seafarers were stranded. Two days ago, the IMO brought that figure down to below 11,000 seafarers. Industry sources estimate that at the time of the signing of the MoU, some 500–600 ships were still stranded.

Meanwhile, traffic across the strait has picked up since the signing of the MoU. Lloyd’s List estimates that in the week of June 8-14 there were 33 transits. But the following week, when the MoU was signed, some 125 transits took place. This includes some 60 ships that took the Oman route.

Experts are optimistic about eventual cooperation between Oman and Iran. Col. Rajeev Agarwal, a foreign policy expert, says Oman has been the peacemaker in the conflicts and pointed to how the Omani Foreign Minister was mediating right until the start of attacks by the U.S. and Israel.

Barring a stray missile or two, Iran had refrained from attacking Oman during the war. “Historically, Oman has always maintained a neutral foreign policy. The only trusted and stable relationship in the Gulf region for Iran is with Oman,” says Mr. Agarwal, author of the book, “Between Tehran and Tel Aviv – Gaza’s Story of Unending War.” “Eventually they will work together on the strait.”