Hormuz relief hinges on Iran deal

Iran has floated a proposal that could allow ships to use the Omani side of the Strait of Hormuz without facing attack, according to a person briefed on Tehran’s negotiating position, offering a possible path to ease one of the biggest shocks to global energy trade in modern times if talks with the United States produce a wider settlement. The idea has emerged as the U. S.-Israeli war with Iran and the maritime disruption around the strait continue to unsettle oil, gas and shipping markets.

The strait is one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints, carrying about a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas flows under normal conditions. Any sign that passage might be stabilised matters far beyond the Gulf, because the conflict has already squeezed physical supply, lifted freight costs and forced buyers in Europe and Asia to seek replacement barrels and cargoes from elsewhere, especially the United States.

Under the proposal described by the Tehran-briefed source, ships could sail freely through the Omani side of the waterway if a deal is clinched that prevents a return to open conflict. That would mark a notable shift from harder Iranian rhetoric aired earlier in the crisis, including ideas around tighter control of traffic or imposing tolls. Yet the outline remains incomplete. It is not clear whether Israeli-linked vessels would be covered, whether any mines or other hazards would have to be cleared first, or how a new arrangement would be monitored and enforced in a heavily militarised corridor.

Diplomatic efforts remain fragile. Reuters reported that a two-week ceasefire began on April 8, and market sentiment has swung with each hint of progress or collapse in talks. At the same time, shipping conditions have stayed tense. The United States has tightened pressure on Iran-linked maritime trade, while vessels associated with sanctioned cargoes have still attempted to move through the Gulf. That has left traders and shipowners weighing not only price risk, but legal and security exposure as well.

The scale of the disruption has been large enough to redraw energy flows within days. U. S. crude exports have surged as European and Asian buyers looked for alternatives to barrels normally linked to Gulf routes. Reuters reported that U. S. exports climbed to 5.2 million barrels a day, the highest in seven months, pushing the country close to becoming a net crude exporter for the first time since 1943. Europe has also been pulling in unusually high volumes of jet fuel from the United States as Middle Eastern supply strains spread into aviation markets.

Oil prices have reflected both the danger and the uncertainty. On April 16, Brent crude was trading around $94.67 a barrel while U. S. West Texas Intermediate stood near $91.43, according to Reuters, after investors weighed hopes for diplomacy against doubts that any agreement would quickly restore normal shipping patterns. Even where cargoes can be replaced, the system becomes costlier and less efficient when freight routes lengthen, insurance premiums climb and refiners compete for substitute supply.

For Europe, the concern is not only the immediate price of crude. The European Union has warned that a prolonged confrontation involving Iran could create a broader energy shock, including pressure on gas storage ahead of winter and the possibility of fuel shortages in some sectors. The bloc’s exposure is indirect rather than absolute, but the Strait of Hormuz remains critical because a large share of globally traded oil and LNG still moves through it before being redirected to customers far beyond the Gulf.

Maritime law and navigation practice add another layer of complexity. The long-established traffic separation system in the strait channels two-way shipping between Iranian and Omani waters, a structure that has underpinned commercial passage for decades. Any effort to formalise a safe route only on the Omani side would need to fit within that framework and satisfy shipowners, insurers and naval forces operating in the area. It would also need broader international acceptance to avoid becoming another disputed interim arrangement in a corridor already burdened by competing claims and wartime pressure.