An informed source told IRGC-affiliated media on Thursday that the emerging Iran-Oman deal would have ships enter the Strait of Hormuz through Iranian territorial waters and exit through Omani waters for a certain period, then pass a central route with Iran managing entrances and Iran and Oman jointly managing exits. [1] Four industry sources told Reuters the same geometry would give Iran control over inbound ships and is not feasible. [2] Friday produced no IRGC correction.
The paper's Thursday feature recorded that IRGC media claimed Iran keeps the strait. Friday's completed record is the same caption. A faction that was not in the Muscat room is still writing it.
The source said the deal includes insurance, fueling, and environmental fees, which are effectively tolls. [1] A Saudi media senior source claimed the same day that the agreement does not include transit fees or service charges. [1] Those two sentences cannot share a tariff.
ISW wrote that any agreement granting Iran control would be detrimental to U.S. and global commercial interests, and that international recognition of that control would let Tehran use the strait as a deterrent in future wars. [1] Voice of Iran argued Wednesday that the regime views the strait as a pillar of security architecture, not only bargaining leverage. [1] Zarif argued Monday for using control as time-limited leverage to recover economically. [1] IRGC media chose the first sermon.
Esper told Fox Friday that administering the waterway would be a very bad outcome even if a fee never appears. [3] Trump sold personal talks and a possible soon. [3] A reader who only watches Fars will think the strait is already administered. A reader who only watches Reuters will think no owner can pay. The paper prints the IRGC map, the Saudi no-fee claim, and the owners' catch-22. Control that cannot be booked is still a claim. It is not a lane.
Wednesday's paper noted a faction around IRGC Commander Major General Ahmad Vahidi sitting close to the supreme leader. [1] A draft the Guards did not sit for is a draft they can still caption. Thursday they captioned it as control. Friday they had not withdrawn the caption.
Punaro said Friday that allowing Iranian control would set a terrible precedent, particularly in the South China Sea. [3] He said he could see Xi Jinping sending a thank-you note. [3] That is a Fox sentence. The owners' sentence is still catch-22. [2] Both can be true. Neither converts an IRGC telegram into a booking.
The informed source said that after a certain period all ships would pass a central route, with Iran managing entrances and Iran and Oman jointly managing exits. [1] A certain period is not a date. Joint management is not a published scheme. Friday's paper will not invent the period. It will print the IRGC claim that the deal keeps control, the Saudi claim that it keeps no fee, and the owners' claim that neither page can be booked. [1][2]
Achieving international recognition of control would let Tehran use the strait as a deterrent in future wars, ISW wrote. [1] That is why the caption matters even when no owner can pay. Friday's hold is the caption still up.
-- YOSEF STERN, Jerusalem