# Iran–Oman Rift Over Hormuz Routes Tests Gulf Shipping and Energy Security

*Thursday, June 25, 2026 at 2:07 PM UTC — Hamer Intelligence Services Desk*

**Published**: 2026-06-25T14:07:29.770Z (3h ago)
**Category**: geopolitics | **Region**: Middle East
**Importance**: 9/10
**Sources**: OSINT
**Permalink**: https://hamerintel.com/data/articles/8762.md
**Source**: https://hamerintel.com/summaries

---

**Deck**: Oman has formalized a new shipping corridor in the southern Strait of Hormuz and publicly rejected any transit fees, even as Iran warns vessels and its Revolutionary Guard claims control over passage. Two tankers have already used the Omani routes without Iranian coordination, putting shipowners and energy markets in the middle of a legal and security tug-of-war at one of the world’s most critical chokepoints.

The Strait of Hormuz is back at the center of a jurisdictional fight that ship captains and energy traders cannot ignore. Oman has moved to formalize a maritime corridor in the southern approaches to the chokepoint and insists it will not charge vessels to use it, while Iran is warning on open radio that transit is only possible with its Revolutionary Guard’s permission.

Oman’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on 25 June that it had established a temporary shipping route in its territorial waters in the southern Strait of Hormuz to improve safety and reduce the risk of collisions. Officials stressed that Muscat would not impose fees on ships transiting the strait and framed the move as an effort to restore freedom of navigation and ensure the safe flow of maritime traffic in line with international law. At a Gulf Cooperation Council summit in Bahrain, Oman reiterated that Hormuz would remain open under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and explicitly rejected any tolls.

Tehran sees it differently. Iranian officials have criticized the creation of new routes without consultation, and a message broadcast on Channel 16 VHF radio, attributed to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy, warned that transiting the Strait of Hormuz is only possible with IRGC permission and along designated tracks. The warning stated that vessels attempting to transit without such authorization, with AIS switched off, or outside the approved lanes would be treated as violating Iranian security.

Amid the tension, at least two tankers have already crossed Hormuz using the Omani route without direct coordination with Iran, according to regional reporting. A separate account said some ships had begun turning back or avoiding the Omani corridor after Iranian warnings, underscoring how quickly risk perception can shift even before any physical interdiction occurs.

For ship crews, the dispute is not abstract: it raises questions about whose instructions to follow in a patchwork of overlapping territorial claims and security assertions. A wrong call on routing, identification systems or radio contact could expose a vessel to detention, harassment or worse. Insurers and charterers must recalculate premiums and routes based on the prospect of parallel “authorities” asserting control over the same narrow waters.

Strategically, the standoff comes as major banks cut their oil price forecasts on the grounds that Hormuz tensions are easing and tanker traffic has begun to normalize after a four‑month disruption linked to the Iran war. If Iran’s IRGC starts actively enforcing its warning, or if a single tanker is detained or damaged, that thesis will be tested. Even without a blockade, legal uncertainty and armed patrols can be enough to slow transits and add cost to every barrel passing through.

The friction also exposes the limits of US and Gulf diplomacy. Washington has made clear it opposes any tolls in Hormuz and supports open passage under international norms, while Oman is keen to present itself as a responsible steward of a vital waterway. Iran, for its part, appears determined to preserve a veto over how and where ships move through the strait, using the IRGC Navy as its instrument.

Hormuz risk does not require a shooting incident to matter; a few sharp warnings on an open radio channel and a contested shipping lane are enough to force shipowners, insurers and governments to rethink the world’s most critical oil artery. The next signals to watch are whether Iran attempts to board or divert any vessel using the Omani route, whether Oman adjusts the corridor under pressure, and how quickly global shipping patterns and insurance rates react if the legal tug‑of‑war turns into a physical one.