A threat by US President Donald Trump to bomb Oman has placed an unusual target at the centre of the US-Iran confrontation. Oman has traditionally played a diplomatic role between Washington and Tehran, but its involvement in discussions over shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has now brought it directly into the dispute.

Trump's comments came as Iran and Oman were working on an arrangement for commercial shipping through the strategic waterway, while the broader US-Iran diplomatic process was facing a critical deadline. The result is a situation in which an agreement intended to ease pressure on global shipping has instead become another source of tension.

On Monday, August 17, Trump told Fox News journalist Trey Yingst that the United States would bomb Oman if it interfered with Washington's efforts over the Strait of Hormuz.

He also demanded that Iran surrender and said his administration maintained a back channel with officials of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. The comments were made publicly as diplomatic efforts over the war remained unresolved.

The threat came on the same day that Iran said it had reached an understanding with Oman over a proposed transit route through the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian officials said the two countries were working toward a joint declaration, with details still being finalised.

That timing is important.
Oman is not simply another country involved in the regional dispute. It has historically served as an intermediary between Iran and Western governments, making its role particularly important when direct US-Iran relations deteriorate.

At the centre of the confrontation is a narrow waterway separating Iran from Oman.

The Strait of Hormuz connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. Its importance comes from the amount of energy transported through it.

US Energy Information Administration data show that roughly 20% of global LNG trade passed through Hormuz in 2024. The waterway has also historically carried around a fifth of global oil trade, making it one of the world's most important energy chokepoints.

That explains why control of shipping through Hormuz has become such a major bargaining issue.

Iran has claimed control over the waterway, while Trump has separately asserted that the United States has control over it. Reuters reported on August 13 that the two sides were making competing claims over the strait.

The dispute therefore goes beyond geography.
Who determines which ships can pass, under what conditions and with whose approval has direct consequences for international energy markets.

The emerging Iran-Oman arrangement appears focused on creating a mechanism for commercial shipping through the strait.

Iranian officials said Monday that Tehran and Muscat had reached an understanding over the map of a transit route, although a joint statement was still being prepared.

For Oman, such an arrangement could help restore maritime traffic and reduce pressure on a waterway that sits immediately beside its territory.

For Washington, however, any arrangement that effectively gives Iran a decisive role in controlling access to the strait could conflict with US objectives.

Reuters previously reported that proposed arrangements involving Iranian control over inbound traffic would represent a significant concession to Tehran, while Washington had rejected the idea of Iranian control of the waterway.

This helps explain the political sensitivity surrounding Oman's negotiations with Iran.

The US Position vs Iran's Position
Washington's position has increasingly focused on preventing Iran from using the Strait of Hormuz as leverage during the conflict.

Trump has insisted on a hard-line approach and has demanded Iranian surrender rather than accepting an agreement that he considers insufficient. Reuters reported Monday that Trump said he was in no hurry to reach a deal.

Iran's position is fundamentally different.
A senior Iranian official told Reuters on Monday that Tehran could shift from a defensive posture to a fully offensive one if diplomatic efforts fail. Another Iranian warning said the country could escalate around the Strait of Hormuz if the United States failed to implement an interim peace arrangement within weeks.

So the competing positions are clear: Washington is demanding greater pressure on Tehran, while Iran is using control of a strategically important shipping route as leverage.

Oman is attempting to negotiate a practical shipping arrangement in the middle of those competing objectives.
The Larger Economic Risk
The significance of Hormuz extends far beyond Iran, Oman and the United States.

Any prolonged disruption of the waterway can affect oil and gas supplies reaching international markets. The EIA estimates that about one-fifth of global LNG trade passed through Hormuz in 2024, with China, India and South Korea among the largest destinations for LNG transported through the route.

The consequences can therefore spread well beyond the Gulf.
Reuters reported Monday that oil prices rose amid limited progress in US-Iran diplomacy, although the absence of major supply outages limited the increase.

For countries that import fuel, including Nigeria, prolonged disruption could matter through global energy prices, shipping costs and broader inflationary pressures. The exact effect would depend on how long the disruption lasts and whether alternative supply routes can compensate.

A Diplomatic Contradiction
The most striking aspect of the current situation is the contradiction surrounding Oman.

The country has historically been useful to Western governments precisely because it can maintain communication with Iran. Yet its current effort to negotiate directly with Tehran over maritime access has triggered a threat from the US president.

That creates a difficult diplomatic calculation.

If Oman steps back, efforts to establish a practical shipping arrangement could become harder. If it continues negotiating with Iran, Washington could regard the arrangement as undermining its objectives.

The threat therefore places pressure on one of the few regional channels capable of maintaining communication between opposing sides.

What Remains Unknown
Several important questions remain unanswered.

First, what exactly will the final Iran-Oman shipping agreement contain? Iranian officials have described an understanding over a transit-route map, but the final joint declaration had not yet been completed in the reports available Monday.

Second, whether Trump's threat represents an actual change in US military policy toward Oman remains unclear. The confirmed fact is that Trump made the threat. There is no evidence in the sources reviewed that he ordered military action against Oman.

Third, whether the broader US-Iran diplomatic process can be revived remains unresolved. The 60-day deadline connected to the June interim arrangement expired Monday without a comprehensive resolution.

Finally, the future status of the Strait itself remains contested. Iran and the United States continue to advance competing claims over who should determine access and maritime operations.

The immediate focus is likely to remain on the proposed Iran-Oman shipping arrangement and the broader US-Iran negotiations.

Iran and Oman were still working on their joint statement Monday, while Iranian officials were warning of further escalation if diplomacy failed. At the same time, Washington continued to press for a settlement on terms favourable to the United States.

The next significant development will therefore be whether the Iran-Oman arrangement is finalised and how Washington responds to it.

The central unresolved issue is no longer simply whether ships can move through Hormuz. It is who gets to decide the conditions under which they move — and whether diplomacy can settle that question before the confrontation becomes even more dangerous.