Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi held talks in Muscat with Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, after which he explicitly reaffirmed the commitment to safe, toll-free navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. The discussions, described by al-Busaidi as “constructive,” focused on the recent memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States, particularly the clause concerning the strait. The Omani minister stated that the meeting stressed adherence to international law and the guarantee of unimpeded passage without the imposition of transit fees.

Viewed from Muscat, the public emphasis on free navigation serves as both a diplomatic signal and a practical reassurance to global energy markets. Omani officials have long positioned the sultanate as an essential intermediary between Tehran and Western capitals, and this latest intervention directly addresses a point of acute regional friction. According to Iranian state media, the two sides also discussed bilateral cooperation and regional de-escalation, framing the current diplomatic window as an opportunity to strengthen stability based on principles of good neighbourliness and international legality.

In Tehran, however, the meeting unfolded against a backdrop of internal factional debate over the strait’s future. A member of the Iranian parliament, Mahmoud Nabavian, recently claimed on state television that Mojtaba Khamenei, son of the Supreme Leader, had insisted that only Iran should control the Strait of Hormuz and that vessels should be charged tolls. A social media account attributed to the younger Khamenei subsequently posted that he had permitted the signing of the US-Iran memorandum, which explicitly prohibits any toll collection during a 60-day ceasefire, while assigning responsibility for the agreement to President Masoud Pezeshkian’s administration. These contradictory signals highlight a persistent tension between hardline elements advocating for maximalist sovereignty claims and a pragmatic faction pursuing negotiated constraints.

From a Washington perspective, critics of the memorandum argue that the agreement marks a sharp departure from earlier US rhetoric. Iran International, a London-based Persian-language outlet, noted that former President Donald Trump had repeatedly encouraged Iranians to “take back” their country and had condemned the regime’s repression, yet the memorandum’s non-interference clause is interpreted by these critics as effectively abandoning the Iranian populace. The same analysis contends that sanctions relief and increased oil revenues—much of it destined for China—could strengthen the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its regional proxies, rather than incentivise internal political change. Nevertheless, the Omani-brokered channel remains the primary diplomatic mechanism for managing immediate flashpoints, with the Strait of Hormuz clause now publicly anchored by a regional guarantor. The next steps are expected to involve continued technical discussions on implementation, with the ceasefire period providing a temporary framework for testing compliance.