E-Paper
Trump threatens to bomb ‘****’ out of Oman: Muscat's balancing act between US and Iran is buckling under pressure
Oman's longstanding neutrality is tested as Trump threatens military action if it interferes with US Iran negotiations.
US President Donald Trump on Monday threatened to bomb Oman if the Gulf state obstructs his administration's push to end the West Asia war, dragging a player into the conflict that has otherwise spent decades keeping close ties with both Washington and Tehran.
It was the second time in the five-month war that Trump had threatened Oman this way. The US President made a near-identical threat in May.
Speaking to Fox News by phone, Trump said, “If Oman gets in the way, we'll bomb the s*** out of them.”
Also Read | Donald Trump ‘threatened to bomb Oman’ over Hormuz deal with Iran: Report
He also claimed his administration had opened a direct backchannel with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and said Tehran should surrender.
An IRGC spokesperson denied any such contact, telling Iran's Tasnim news agency that the claim was "fantasies caused by the delusions and nightmares" of an administration facing defeat.
The remarks came as Iran said it was close to finalising an agreement with Muscat on a mechanism to allow commercial ships to travel through the Strait of Hormuz. The threat also landed the same day a 60-day US-Iran memorandum of understanding, meant to underpin peace talks, expired with little hope of renewal.
Trump’s threat lays bare the difficulty of Oman's position. It is a longstanding US security partner, and also holds some of the closest ties with Iran among Gulf states. That balancing act has for years allowed Muscat to serve as a backchannel between Washington and Tehran. Now its neutrality is being tested from both directions.
Also Read | Why Trump Is Threatening Again to Bomb Oman
Where Hormuz talks stand now
On Monday, Tehran said it and Oman had agreed a new shipping route through the strait and were preparing a joint declaration. Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghchi said the mechanism was designed to protect both countries' sovereign rights while allowing commercial shipping through, calling it “the first time that a mechanism is being developed to simultaneously safeguard the sovereign rights of the two littoral states and ensure the safe passage of commercial vessels”..
Under the emerging arrangement, inbound traffic would use a northern lane through Iranian territorial waters, and outbound traffic a southern lane through Omani waters, coordinated with Iran.
Iranian state media have separately described a version of the deal that would bar American and Israeli-linked vessels from the strait altogether, fine violators up to 20% of cargo value, and require countries or individuals deemed to have damaged Iran to pay compensation before being allowed passage, NPR has reported.
Also Read | ‘Will bomb the s*** out of Oman’: Trump's latest threat over Strait of Hormuz blockade row
Iran has said it would also take responsibility for navigation guidance, traffic monitoring, maritime security and environmental protection along the route.
Officials caution the agreement would not by itself reopen the strait. Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi has said reopening the strait depends on separate US concessions, including a rollback of the naval blockade Washington has imposed on Iranian ports.
An IRGC spokesperson went further, telling state media that the strait's reopening "has nothing to do with the negotiations between Iran and Oman" and hinges instead on Washington meeting Tehran's conditions.
How is Oman involved?
Muscat has traditionally maintained a policy of neutrality in West Asia and cultivated working relationships with rival powers, which has made it an important intermediary between Iran and the US. Omani foreign minister Badr Albusaidi was involved in US-Iran nuclear negotiations immediately before the war began on February 28, and those talks were said to have made progress shortly before the US-Israeli strikes on Iran.
Oman has continued its mediation since, particularly over the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway that runs between Iran and Oman and ranks among the world's most important energy routes.
Muscat insists that negotiating with Tehran does not amount to taking Iran's side. A Guardian report in June said Oman had told Washington that its discussions with Iran were focused on creating a management system for the strait that complies with international law.
Oman has also said it supports freedom of navigation and does not impose transit fees, while providing services including navigation assistance, search and rescue, and medical help.
It also condemned Iranian attacks on Bahrain and Kuwait, and without assigning blame, condemned repeated attacks on vessels transiting the strait during its negotiations with Tehran, Reuters reported.
Why the strait matters
The strait is a narrow waterway connecting the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. Before the conflict, about a fifth of the world's oil and LNG supplies passed through it.
Iran effectively closed the strait after the US-Israeli attacks began, disrupting global energy supplies, and Washington subsequently imposed its own blockade on Iranian ports.
The disruption has kept energy markets on edge. Brent crude, the global benchmark, traded at about $66 a barrel just before the war began in February; it has since surged past $100 a barrel on several occasions, most recently in July, and stood near $91 this week.
Also Read | Trump says no talks scheduled with Iran, claims Hormuz ‘open and operating’
The waterway has become the central bargaining chip in the US-Iran war.
Iran sees control over it as a major source of leverage in negotiations, and the prolonged dispute over reopening the strait has meant that the question of who governs shipping through Hormuz is now almost as important as whether the war itself will end.
Tehran has resisted arrangements that could dilute its control. In June, it rejected a proposal developed with the United Nations' International Maritime Organization (IMO) for shipping lanes close to Oman's coast. That plan would have included a lane in Omani waters overseen by a US-backed maritime information centre. It was abandoned after an Iranian attack on a Singaporean ship using the southern route.
The episode illustrated a fundamental problem for Muscat: it can propose ways to reopen the strait, but Iran retains the ability to reject arrangements it believes undermine its authority.
The June 17 memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran was meant to draw a line under this cycle, but it unravelled quickly. Iran struck several ships in late June for using an Oman-centred, US-approved route rather than its own, triggering roughly two weeks of renewed US strikes on Iran.
What does Oman want?
Muscat had been developing its own model for managing the strait.
In July, Iranian deputy foreign minister Kazem Gharibabadi said Oman's proposal involved a roughly 50-50 arrangement. Iran would control transit lanes on its side of the strait, while Oman would control lanes along its coast. The proposal also envisaged "voluntary fees" from shipping vessels, with proceeds going to both countries.
Oman's argument was that a lawful payment for specific maritime services differs from an illegal toll for simply passing through the strait. “We are not in favour of imposing tolls on passage through the strait of Hormuz, which is prohibited internationally, whereas service fees are legal," Albusaidi said.
Andrew Leber, a non-resident scholar at the Carnegie Middle East Program, has said Oman's standing as mediator "has left it increasingly trapped" between Iran's demands for some kind of toll and US insistence that there be none. “As a result, we've seen Omani diplomats tack back and forth between insisting no toll will be charged, and suggesting that ships might be asked to pay a fee which will be called something other than a toll," Leber told CNBC. He noted Oman has both a security and a financial stake in the outcome, given its geography places it directly astride the strait.
Why is Trump angry with Oman?
Washington fears that an Iran-Oman arrangement could give Tehran greater control over the strait and legitimise a system the US opposes. There is also concern that Iran could convert its wartime control of the waterway into a lasting post-war reality.
Experts say Trump’s anger also stems from being cut out of an arrangement negotiated without Washington’s direct involvement. "In part, a solution mediated without US intervention and which in fact allows Oman and Iran to manage passage through Hormuz, which lies entirely within the two countries' territorial waters, would show how impotent the United States is and has been," Laleh Khalili, professor of Gulf studies at the University of Exeter, told Al Jazeera.
Trump has separately staked out a maximalist position of his own. On August 14, he told supporters in New York that he intended to declare the Strait of Hormuz US “territory”.
The Trump administration has also pressed Oman to distance itself from Tehran. A June report said Washington had demanded that Muscat abandon its longstanding neutrality and cut ties with Iran, amid US concerns about possible Iranian-Omani cooperation over shipping fees.
Oman has resisted the pressure, arguing that its neutrality is precisely what makes it useful as a mediator, and that severing ties with Tehran could destroy the diplomatic channel Washington itself has relied upon.
Could this backfire on Oman?
For Iran, Muscat is a valuable neighbour and intermediary, though Tehran has already rejected Oman's preferred arrangement as ceding it too much control over the strait. For the US, Oman is a longstanding ally, yet Washington has grown increasingly suspicious that its engagement with Tehran could undermine American objectives.
Muscat therefore risks being seen as too close to Iran by Washington and too independent by Tehran.
The danger is not only diplomatic. If Oman gives Washington what it wants and cuts ties with Iran, it could lose credibility as a neutral mediator, and Tehran could become less willing to trust Muscat in future negotiations. If it pushes ahead with a system that Tehran supports and Washington opposes, it risks sanctions, diplomatic retaliation or further threats from the US.
Despite the pressure, neither Washington nor Tehran can easily sideline Muscat. Its longstanding ties with Iran give it access many other Gulf states lack, and its relationship with the US makes it a valuable partner for Washington.
Even Iran's willingness to hold joint discussions with Omani officials over the future of Hormuz implicitly acknowledges that Muscat has a role in deciding how the waterway is eventually managed.
