Experts are expressing growing concern over reports that an emerging deal between Iran and Oman to reopen the Strait of Hormuz could grant Tehran unprecedented oversight over the international shipping route, ceding control to Iran that it did not possess prior to the conflict.

The potential agreement comes as President Donald Trump suggested on Tuesday that “a lot of progress had been made” in negotiations and signaled a deal on the strategic waterway could be announced as soon as this week. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei confirmed on Wednesday that an arrangement with Oman had reached the “final stage.”

Iran’s deputy foreign minister has denied direct negotiations with the U.S. and warned that an agreement would not automatically reopen the waterway. Iranian state media also reported that, under a draft bill currently being reviewed by an Iranian parliamentary committee, U.S. and Israeli ships may also be barred from crossing the strait.

Reports indicate any agreement would likely last for 60 days and require the U.S. to lift its naval blockade on Iranian ports. A deal would potentially initiate the clearing of naval mines in the strait, a return to a broader ceasefire and resumption of talks with the U.S. on Tehran’s nuclear program.

Under the proposed terms, inbound commercial vessels would be directed through a northern route in Iranian waters, while outbound ships would traverse a southern route in Omani waters, managed in coordination with Iran. Although a U.S. official told the Associated Press that such a deal would preclude Iran from issuing formal approvals for transiting ships, tolls or service fees, regional analysts warn that formalizing Iranian oversight over the chokepoint represents a significant strategic concession.

Matthew Levitt, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told Jewish Insider that Washington’s drive for a resolution with Iran may be driving it to agree to a less-than-ideal scenario. 

“President Trump is very eager for a deal that reopens the strait, and seems inclined to accept a deal under which Iran has greater oversight of ships entering and exiting the strait,” Levitt said. “The key is denying Iran any way of monetizing the flow of traffic through this international waterway.”

Daniel Shapiro, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel under President Barack Obama who also served as President Joe Biden’s Iran liaison to Israel, told JI that “if the deal that is being described comes into effect, it is a strategic win for Iran.”

“[Iran] will emerge with effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, which was a fully open international waterway before the war,” Shapiro said. “The United States will be strategically worse off with this outcome than we were before the war, but it is almost certainly the only way to prevent an escalation that would produce even greater global economic disruption than we have already seen.”

Shapiro noted that even after a deal is made, Iran “will probably receive early sanctions relief … and they will only be expected to start negotiations on their nuclear program, which could turn out to be fruitless and endless.” 

Analysts emphasized that the disconnect between Washington and Tehran regarding the scope of the agreement poses risks to maritime security.

Jonathan Ruhe, director of foreign policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America , pointed out that much like the June U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding, the potential deal means vastly different things to each side. While the U.S. expects international shipping to resume unencumbered, Tehran views the arrangement as a vehicle to establish long-term authority.

“Iran expects much more, including at least de facto ability to toll and veto passage through Hormuz,” Ruhe said. “Tehran’s redline for a deal is recognition of its ‘right’ to determine and deter shipping in Hormuz, as the spoils of its victory and a key counterweight to further U.S. pressure.” 

“Combined with the complications of gaining signoff from Iran’s Supreme Leader, and Iran’s predictable tendency to seek additional U.S. concessions, these differences explain the lack of a deal so far – despite U.S. anticipation of an imminent announcement,” he continued. 

Ruhe said that even if the Trump administration secures a deal that reopens the strait, the precedent set by such an agreement could remain dangerous. 

“It would affirm that the fate of this critical waterway is subject to Iran’s approval, and undermine America’s abiding interest in free navigation,” he said. “By cementing a key wartime gain, it would embolden Tehran to take the hardest possible line in any follow-on talks.”

Richard Goldberg, a senior advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former Trump administration official, cautioned that the final structure of the deal will determine whether Washington is conceding leverage or calling Tehran’s bluff. 

“I find it difficult to believe we would ever cede formal control over a critical international waterway to a terrorist group, or otherwise tolerate that group collecting tolls or fees for what is already an international right to freedom of navigation,” Goldberg said.

Goldberg noted that Iran’s rhetoric may ultimately be bluster. 

“Oftentimes the reality of a situation might differ from Iran’s propaganda — that is, in this case, Iran might claim it’s ‘allowing’ ships to pass through its claimed ‘territorial waters’ but in practice it could mean ships are just moving through the strait as they always used to without taking drone or missile fire,” Goldberg explained. “If we see formal control, tolls or fees, that’s a terrible outcome; if we see Iran just making claims that it’s allowing something to happen but there is no formalized control, no extortion payments being made, that could very well be a propaganda-disguised-victory for the United States.”

Lawmakers and Middle East analysts are expressing support for Washington’s reported agreement to help Oman strengthen its maritime intelligence and monitoring of transit through the Strait of Hormuz, saying the move could help secure free access to the critical waterway and deter Iranian influence.

Intelligence Online reported that Oman requested U.S. assistance to strengthen its maritime intelligence and provide surveillance on the Strait of Hormuz to protect shipping during the current ceasefire. The Pentagon received the request last month from the Royal Navy of Oman, sources told the outlet, and Washington has agreed to fulfill it by sending a defense contractor to address the immediate surveillance needs.

Throughout the conflict between the U.S. and Iran, Oman has stated it is maintaining its traditional position of neutrality. However, Washington has heavily criticized Muscat for its ongoing backchannel diplomacy with Tehran, calling on the Gulf nation to sever ties and pick a side. 

U.S. officials have also chided Oman for refusing to directly condemn Tehran for drone attacks on regional infrastructure in the Gulf, and the Trump administration previously threatened military action if Muscat cooperated with Iran to impose fees or controls on shipping in the strait. Oman hosted Iranian officials to discuss the “administration” of the strait as recently as Tuesday.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) expressed support for the agreement, assessing that U.S.-Omani cooperation in the strait advances Washington’s interests.

“That would help America,” Kennedy told Jewish Insider. “Therefore, I’m for it. I think it’s great.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said that while he did not have independent knowledge of the specifics, he believed closer cooperation is a welcome step.

“Any action that can ensure the strait remains open certainly ought to be welcome,” Blumenthal said. “If the United States can really use Oman’s help, or any other of the Gulf nations, it would be welcome.”

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN), however, struck a more skeptical tone.

“Trust but verify,” Burchett said. “I have a hard time trusting anybody in the Middle East right now, so that’s all I can say.”

When asked whether the joint monitoring arrangement could successfully deter Iranian influence or keep the crucial passageway toll-free, Burchett remarked: “I would be wishful for that.”

“The lines change and they get blurred so fast over there,” Burchett added. “I think there’s a new sense of collaboration over there, because a lot of Muslim-leaning countries supported us in our efforts in Iran, so I think they’re sick of the fighting too.”

Analysts said the arrangement is not unusual given the decades-long U.S.-Oman intelligence partnership, but argued it could help repair the countries’ ties, which were strained during the conflict with Iran.

“It’s perfectly in keeping with the Trump administration’s cognitive dissonance to criticize and cooperate with Oman in the same breath,” Jonathan Ruhe, a director of foreign policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, said. “Oman hasn’t been America’s closest Gulf partner, but it long depended on the United States to defend Hormuz against Iran.”

Simon Henderson, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, argued that “any policy which helps maintain and improve the ties [between the U.S. and Oman] deserves encouragement.”

“The U.S. needs Oman as an ally if it is to make sure that Iran does not dominate the Strait of Hormuz,” Henderson said. “It will be interesting to see whether the current tension is reparable. Oman is very sensitive to U.S. criticism and may well judge that the future represents a different relationship and direction.”

Edmund Fitton-Brown, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, noted that the arrangement yields intelligence benefits for Washington.

“The U.S. will expect to receive all of the intel generated by the Omani navy on the strait,” Fitton-Brown said. “It also keeps Oman, along with Qatar and Pakistan, as a mediator in future conflicts. Above all, the U.S. ability to manage future negotiations and crises in the strait will be enhanced, and it is likely to be able to dictate what stance Oman adopts in such negotiations and crises.”

Fitton-Brown added that while Oman has tried to behave neutrally, its core relationship of trust remains with the U.S. This assistance gives Muscat “reassurance that the U.S. still has confidence in it as an ally masquerading as neutral.”

“[Oman] was worried during the U.S.-Iran conflict that it might be forced to make an overt choice between the U.S. and GCC, which would have antagonized Iran,” Fitton-Brown noted. “Now Oman expects that it will be able to continue its cordial relations with Iran, and continue to host the Houthis, without angering the U.S.”

Ruhe added that the U.S. may be eager to assist due to the Trump administration’s focus on “anything that restores oil flowing from the Gulf and reverses the war’s economic costs here at home.”

Furthermore, analysts emphasized that enhanced surveillance capabilities allow Oman to safeguard its own sovereignty against Iran’s aspirations in the strait.

“Oman probably seeks to ensure that it is at least an equal partner with Iran in arrangements over the passage through the strait,” Henderson said.

Fitton-Brown agreed, noting that the Omanis are “trying to understand the future status of the strait and need all the help they can get.”

“The focus is the Strait of Hormuz, which is likely because of Iranian assertiveness in the strait which infringes upon Omani national security,” Fitton-Brown said. “The Omani navy does not lack capability but is looking for enhancement, particularly in the fields of real-time surveillance and fusion of data from different forms of intelligence collection, including open source. The requirement will be for a training program, which can be provided by a U.S. contractor with an intelligence background.”

Major Gulf powers are coming together in rare lockstep amid Iran’s strikes around the region, with the United Arab Emirates closing its embassy in Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council declaring it retains the right to respond.

After the U.S. and Israel launched a major operation against Iran on Saturday, the regime struck sites in at least nine countries around the Middle East, including Israel, Jordan, Syria and every member of the Gulf Cooperation Council — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Despite claiming it is aiming at U.S. military assets in the region, Iran has struck widely at civilian infrastructure, including hotels, residential neighborhoods and airports in the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait and Iraq. At least 12 civilians were killed in Israel over the weekend, along with three U.S. servicemembers.

On Saturday, the first day of the operation, UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed spoke by phone with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to discuss Iran’s aggression and their response, a significant development and sign of the seriousness of the issue amid a regional rift between the two major powers.

The UAE has taken the brunt of much of Iran’s malign activity — its Ministry of Defense said Sunday that the country had been targeted by 165 ballistic missiles, two cruise missiles and 541 drones from Iran. Three civilians were killed and 58 injured in the barrage. 

Shortly after, Abu Dhabi announced the closure of its embassy in Tehran and the withdrawal of its entire diplomatic mission, citing Iran’s “hostile attacks against civilian sites … in a serious and irresponsible escalation [that] constitute a flagrant violation of national sovereignty.” The country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also summoned the Iranian ambassador to the UAE and “delivered a strongly worded note of protest” about Iran’s “terrorist attacks and assault.”

Also on Sunday, the ministerial council of the GCC held a meeting over video conference and issued a statement strongly condemning Iran’s attacks and affirming the countries’ “legal right to respond.” 

“The Council also expressed full solidarity among the GCC countries and their unified stance in confronting these attacks, stressing that the security of GCC member states is indivisible, and that any attack against any member state constitutes a direct attack against all GCC countries,” the statement went on. The countries “will take all necessary measures to defend their security and stability and to protect their territories, citizens, and residents, including the option of responding to the aggression,” they pledged.

The U.S. also joined the GCC in another statement Sunday, saying that Iran’s “targeting of civilians and of countries not engaged in hostilities is reckless and destabilizing behavior.”

Republicans lawmakers continued to dismiss this week the idea that a nuclear deal with Iran is achievable, despite comments by President Donald Trump over the weekend. 

Trump said that the talks with Iran, held in Oman last Friday, had been “very good,” that Tehran “wants to make a deal very badly” and that he is in “no rush” to move ahead. He also said that the Iranian demand that the talks be only focused on nuclear weapons “would be acceptable” — an apparent softening of the U.S. position that any potential agreement should also address Iran’s ballistic missile stockpiles and its support for regional terror proxies. The talks did not appear to touch on the Islamic Republic’s recent violent crackdown on nationwide protests.

Asked about Trump’s comments about a nuclear-only deal, Republicans largely dismissed the idea that any deal would actually be forthcoming.

“Iran’s not going to make a deal with us. They’re going to stall and re-stall to buy time, but they’re not going to make a deal,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) told Jewish Insider. “The ayatollah is [as] crazy as a bed bug. And he’s never going to give up any hope that he has of nuclear weapons. He’s never going to stop killing his people and drinking their blood out of a boot, and he’s never going to stop funding Hamas and Hezbollah.”

Kennedy predicted that military action is both necessary and forthcoming.

“You’re going to have to give them a curbstomping, but you don’t want to start a regional war doing it,” Kennedy continued. “My guess is that’s what the president is talking to [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio and the military guys with a bunch of their flags in their office [about] right now.”

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) agreed that the Iranian regime is not genuinely interested in making an agreement with the United States. 

“There won’t be a deal,” Scott told JI. “They’re not going to do a deal.”

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) said he hadn’t seen Trump’s comments but he does not “trust the word of the regime, at all.”

“They have not proven trustworthy with their word in the past, and so you have to have a way to be able to verify everything,” Lankford continued.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), meanwhile, told JI on Monday that he would delay a vote on a war powers resolution he introduced with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) blocking military action against Iran pending the ongoing talks with the regime. 

The resolution would theoretically be eligible for votes by the full Senate later this week, should Kaine and Paul wish to call it up.

The Virginia senator told JI that he and Paul are in discussions about timing for votes, and that he hasn’t yet made a decision on when to call the bill up.

“We have to check each day to see where [the talks] are. I don’t think calling it up in the middle of discussions that have some chance to it — that’s not the right time — but we’ll just see where we are,” Kaine said.

The next round of scheduled nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran will not take place on Sunday, Omanian Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi announced on Saturday evening, as Israel and Iran continue to trade strikes.

Albusaidi said that the talks, intended to be the sixth round of negotiations, “will not now take place. But diplomacy and dialogue remain the only pathway to lasting peace.”

A senior U.S. administration official told The New York Times, “While there will be no meeting Sunday, we remain committed to talks and hope the Iranians will come to the table soon.” President Donald Trump had exerted additional pressure, writing on Truth Social on Friday that “Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire … JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.”

In a Truth Social post on Saturday afternoon, Trump said that “we can easily get a deal done between Iran and Israel, and end this bloody conflict,” noting that the “U.S. had nothing to do with the attack on Iran, tonight” but that if the U.S. was “attacked in any way, shape or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the U.S. Armed Forces will come down” on Tehran “at levels never seen before.”

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkain reportedly said on a call with French President Emmanuel Macron on Saturday that Iran will not “accept irrational demands under pressure” or “sit at the negotiating table while the Zionist regime continues its attacks.” 

The talks’ cancellation comes following Israel’s preemptive attack early Friday morning on Iranian nuclear and military targets, and Iran’s retaliatory strikes against Israel.

The IDF said Saturday night it had completed “an extensive series of strikes” on targets including the Iranian Ministry of Defense and its nuclear research and development headquarters. Iranian state media reported strikes on several oil facilities, including the South Pars field shared between Iran and Qatar, the largest natural gas field in the world. 

Iran fired around 70 ballistic missiles and several drones at Israel on Saturday night and early Sunday morning, sending Israelis across the country into bomb shelters. Direct impacts were reported in the northern Arab city of Tamra — killing four civilians — and the central cities of Bat Yam, where at least six civilians were killed and 200 wounded, and Rehovot, where at least 40 were wounded and laboratories at The Weizmann Institute of Science were reportedly damaged. The Bazan oil refinery in Haifa was also damaged in the attack, though its refining activities continue, its operating company reported on Sunday. 

Saturday night’s strikes bring the death toll in Israel from the Iranian attacks to at least 13 with 380 people injured.