Iran is hardening its stance and attempting to transform the Strait of Hormuz from an arena of military confrontation into leverage for exercising sovereignty and political pressure against the US.
The final agreement with Oman outlines new maritime entry and exit corridors across the Persian Gulf, with a substantial portion situated inside Iranian territorial waters and subject to Iranian regulations.
However, the agreement does not signify the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
Tehran has communicated seven conditions to Washington via intermediaries, making it clear that without their implementation, the Strait will remain closed.
At the same time, the American side appears to dismiss the Iran-Oman agreement as practically inconsequential, while the case of the two F-15 pilots and allegations of pressure by Pete Hegseth for an appearance on «60 Minutes» expose a secondary struggle: the battle to control the war narrative and the public image of American military operations.
New details on the Iran agreement
New details regarding the final agreement between Iran and Oman are coming to light following intensive technical and diplomatic consultations between the two countries, which concluded in early September with the reaching of a final accord.
According to reports, the accord between Tehran and Muscat is expected to be announced shortly in the presence of the foreign ministers of countries along the Gulf littoral.
Iran imposes 7 conditions on the US to open Hormuz, maritime control passes to Iran, deal with Oman on September 14
Iran submitted 7 conditions to the United States for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, reports Tasnim.
Earlier, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic announced that Iran will host a meeting with Iraq and Persian Gulf nations in Oman on Monday, September 14, 2026.
Safe maritime routes for commercial shipping along this waterway will be discussed.
«Iran, through intermediaries, proposed 7 conditions to the American side for the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and until these seven conditions, approved by senior Iranian officials, are fulfilled, the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed».
It added, however, that the agreements between Iran and Oman, which the parties hope to announce on Monday, September 14, 2026, do not entail the opening of the Strait of Hormuz.
Other nations will attend the meeting solely to receive information regarding the specifics of maritime navigation arrangements in Hormuz.
«1) Inbound passage into the Persian Gulf will transit entirely through the territorial waters of Iran.
2) The outbound route from the Persian Gulf will transit partially through the territorial waters of Iran».
3) The southern corridor in the Strait of Hormuz, which the US insisted on opening, will be shut down.
4) Iran demands the lifting of sanctions.
5) Iran demands the unfreezing of Iranian assets.
6) American bases near Hormuz and the Persian Gulf must be closed.
7) All hostile actions and the naval blockade of the Persian Gulf must halt, and the economic blockade must be lifted.
Prior to the escalation of hostilities in the region, Hormuz was one of the cornerstone corridors for international energy trade, handling roughly 20% of global crude oil and liquefied natural gas supplies.
In mid-August 2026, Trump claimed that the route was open to navigation while Iran was subjected to a naval blockade.
Iran, however, maintains the exact opposite.
Due to continuous tensions, the number of crude tankers and gas carriers transiting the route has plummeted drastically from 100 vessels daily down to 12 vessels daily.
The agreement concerns exclusively Iran and Oman
The agreement has been concluded exclusively between Iran and Oman.
The remaining nations of the region are scheduled to participate in the relevant meeting to receive briefings regarding the terms of the accord, as well as the new frameworks governing vessel traffic.
Their presence is viewed as functioning also as an indirect indication that they raise no objections to the new arrangements, clarifying their stance before the international community.
Within the framework of the agreement, the details and parameters of the new inbound and outbound transit lanes across the Strait of Hormuz have been established.
The new maritime transit routes
Under the accord, the entry corridor into the Persian Gulf is situated entirely inside Iranian territorial waters.
Concurrently, a portion of the outbound transit corridor from the Persian Gulf is likewise located within the territorial waters of Iran.
Transit across these specified lanes will proceed under Iranian regulatory oversight, and upon implementation of the agreement, the southern transit lane is expected to be shut down.
This concerns the passage that the US reportedly insisted on keeping open and which constituted a primary trigger of renewed friction in the region.
Presence of Gulf nations and Iraq
Beyond Iran and Oman, the remaining states bordering the Gulf, alongside Iraq, are expected to attend the gathering.
However, their function will be predominantly informative.
These nations will receive briefings concerning the outcome of talks between Iran and Oman, whereas the technical details of the agreement have formed the subject of consultations exclusively between the two parties.
The agreement does not mean reopening the Strait of Hormuz
Of particular significance is the fact that the Iran-Oman agreement does not in any way signify that the Strait of Hormuz is reopening.
Iran has conveyed seven conditions to the American side via intermediaries for reopening the Strait.
According to available details, these seven terms have been ratified by the supreme leadership bodies of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Until these specific conditions are met, the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed.
Iran retains control of the process
Consequently, the agreement between Tehran and Muscat does not constitute an accord to reopen the waterway.
On the contrary, it lays out the regulatory framework under which navigation could proceed in the event that reopening is decided.
This development is viewed as significant by the Iranian side, as it consolidates the posture of Tehran regarding the exercise of sovereignty and operational oversight of these specific sea lanes.
The prospect of reopening the Strait remains entirely contingent upon the stance of the US, and primarily upon whether the American side proceeds to enact the seven conditions presented by Iran.
The US struck an Iranian merchant vessel
Meanwhile, a lethal incident in the strategic waters of the Persian Gulf threatens to ignite a fresh round of retaliation.
An attack on an Iranian commercial container vessel by American fire early on Sunday morning, September 13, left one dead and several critically wounded, underscoring that navigation through the Strait of Hormuz hangs by a thread.
Timeline of the attack off Qeshm island
According to official announcements by Iranian authorities in the province of Hormozgan, the incident occurred around 05:00 in the morning, while the commercial ship was underway in the zone between Hengam island and the coastal cliffs of Qeshm island.
Of the 10-member crew, one sailor (identified as Jamshid Rajabi) was killed instantly, while four others sustained injuries and are hospitalized.
Local officials and the governor of Qeshm, Hossein Amir Teymouri, attributed the strike directly to an American projectile, characterizing it as an unprovoked attack against a civilian vessel.
International shipping on a tightrope
This strike adds to a series of escalating incidents in the Persian Gulf, turning the Strait of Hormuz into a high-risk operational zone for international trade.
Iranian authorities are investigating the precise circumstances of the attack and the condition of the vessel, announcing further updates, while the international community monitors with concern the potential for military escalation.
Third strike in September
Since the onset of military hostilities with Iran on February 28, 2026, the United States has targeted and destroyed or disabled at least 8 Iranian tankers and commercial vessels.
September 5, 2026: US Central Command (CENTCOM) launched airstrikes against 3 Iranian oil tankers (the tankers Downy, Stark 1, and Kylo), completely destroying one and inflicting permanent damage on the other two.
September 8, 2026: In the largest escalation of attacks against maritime traffic, American forces struck and destroyed 5 additional Iranian tankers (including the Derya, Kaviz, Riesco, Charminar, and Horizon 1) in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.
American military authorities note that these strikes were conducted as retaliation for ballistic missile and drone attacks launched by Iran against American warships and international shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
Al Jazeera: the Iran-Oman agreement holds no weight for the US
At the same time, diplomatic activity in the region has prompted responses in Washington.
Al Jazeera, citing an American official, reported that Washington maintains an indifferent posture toward the consultations taking place in Muscat.
According to the same source, from the perspective of the US, any agreement or memorandum signed between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Sultanate of Oman will lack substantive consequence or practical validity for the American side.
This stance demonstrates that, despite diplomatic engagement between Tehran and Muscat, Washington does not consider that a bilateral accord can unilaterally modify its own policy regarding the Strait of Hormuz or create obligations for the US.
Pete Hegseth pressures downed F-15 pilot in Iran for «60 Minutes» interview
Concurrently, Secretary of War of the US Pete Hegseth, alongside political officials from his office, reportedly attempted to persuade a crew member of an F-15 shot down during the war with Iran to grant an interview to the television program «60 Minutes».
According to CNN, which cites several American sources familiar with the affair, this initiative revives questions regarding the role of the US Department of War in managing public perception and the narrative surrounding the conflict.
The two pilots appeared hesitant
The two pilots connected to the incident were reportedly initially hesitant regarding a prospective television interview.
As sources cited by CNN report, they demonstrated little interest in making public appearances and approached the possibility of participating in the broadcast with caution.
However, Pete Hegseth met privately with the two aviators and discussed their possible appearance on «60 Minutes».
According to the same reports, the secretary asked whether they wished to give an interview, emphasizing concurrently that neither of them would be coerced into taking part.
One pilot agreed, the other declined
Ultimately, one of the two pilots agreed to grant an interview.
CNN, in order to protect his identity, refers to him under the pseudonym «Bravo».
The second pilot, referred to in the reporting as «Alpha», decided against participating in the broadcast.
This development assumes particular weight, as both servicemen were directly engaged in combat operations, and their public visibility could substantially shape how the American public views operations and their consequences.
Narrative management takes center stage
The report by CNN emerges at a time when communication management of the war with Iran by the American administration has become the focus of intense debate.
The presence of military personnel across news media, particularly those with frontline operational experience, functions as a powerful instrument for molding public opinion.
According to CNN, this case illustrates the efforts of the office of Pete Hegseth to craft the communications narrative surrounding the war.
Within this context, first-hand accounts from service members on the battlefield can serve as one of the primary communications channels of the American administration.
Pentagon issues denial
The Pentagon, however, dismisses the version presented by CNN.
A spokesperson for the Department of War of the US described the report as untruthful, stating:
«This entire story is false».
The Pentagon also maintains that the decision regarding the participation of the two pilots in a television interview was left entirely to them, with no coercion involved.
New dispute over message control
The conflicting versions presented by CNN and the Pentagon bring back to the forefront the debate over the boundaries separating military public affairs, public relations, and governmental management of wartime messaging.
The issue takes on even greater consequence when involving service members who directly participated in operations, as personal testimony can shape both public sentiment and perceptions of the operational effectiveness of the armed forces of the US.
The case is expected to fuel further domestic debate in the US regarding the governmental role in orchestrating public messaging during wartime.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών