The naval forces of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) issued a sharp statement, threatening to take action against any vessels that attempt to cross the Strait of Hormuz outside routes agreed with Tehran. According to the Fars news agency, Iran believes that any alternative route announced without prior notification to the Iranian side is “categorically unacceptable and extremely dangerous.” IRGC representatives stressed that the only authorized and safe passage through the strategic strait is the one determined by the Islamic Republic itself, and that all transit vessels must coordinate their movements with Iranian authorities.
Tehran’s statement came immediately after Oman announced the creation of a temporary maritime corridor for anyone wishing to pass through the strait, in coordination with the International Maritime Organization (IMO). According to Oman’s news agency, the decision was made on Tuesday and is based on the principles of international maritime law, guaranteeing freedom of navigation without charging any additional fees. Muscat also linked the move to recent talks between the United States and Iran, which took place with Oman acting as intermediary.
Against this backdrop, an international response also intensified. The US energy minister said that the resumption of global oil flows is being delayed by mines allegedly installed by Iran and emphasized that Tehran is no longer able to fully block the strait as it did in the past. At the same time, NATO’s secretary general said that several European allies have already sent warships to the Hormuz area for mine-clearing and to ensure the safety of commercial vessels, in order to guarantee uninterrupted energy supplies.
Oman, for its part, published detailed navigation instructions for ships wishing to use the new corridor. The country’s maritime security authority posted a route map and urged captains to contact the IMO in advance to ensure a smooth and safe passage. Muscat insists that freedom of navigation is an inherent international right that should not become the subject of political pressure or extortion, and that the initiative itself is aimed at reducing tensions and improving traffic organization in the strait.
Thus, a standoff has emerged in the region between two approaches: Iran demands unconditional recognition of its control over shipping routes, while Oman is trying to uphold international norms and create an alternative, independent route for transit. While Tehran is warning of “serious consequences” for violators and Western countries are increasing their military presence, the question of who will manage one of the world’s busiest oil corridors remains open.
Comments on the news
What is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and why does it have its own naval forces separate from Iran’s regular army?
The IRGC is an elite politico-military formation created after the 1979 Islamic Revolution to protect the ideological regime. Unlike the regular army (Artesh), the IRGC is directly subordinate to the Supreme Leader and is responsible for “exporting the revolution” and conducting asymmetric operations. The IRGC’s own navy emerged in the 2000s as a tool for conducting unconventional warfare in the Persian Gulf—using fast boats, mines, and “swarm tactics” to deter more powerful US and allied fleets. This allows Iran to duplicate capabilities and maintain operational independence in the event of conflict.On what grounds does Iran claim the right to determine safe shipping routes in the Strait of Hormuz, and how does that relate to international maritime law?
Iran argues that as a coastal state (the strait partially falls within its territorial waters), it is responsible for the safety of navigation in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), even though it has not ratified it itself. Tehran cites the right to “innocent passage” and the need to protect against environmental threats or military provocations. However, international law (Article 37 of UNCLOS) establishes a “transit passage” regime through straits used for international navigation, which does not allow unilateral control. Disputes arise due to differing interpretations: Iran insists on an exclusive security zone, while Western countries see this as a violation of freedom of navigation.What role does Oman traditionally play as a mediator between Iran and Western countries, and why does it enjoy trust from both sides?
For decades, Oman has acted as a neutral mediator thanks to its independent foreign policy and close historical ties to both Iran (shared borders and cultural roots) and the West (especially the United States and the United Kingdom). The Sultanate did not participate in anti-Iranian coalitions and preserved diplomatic channels even during periods of sanctions and conflict. Iran’s trust is based on Oman’s non-interference and its role in facilitating negotiations (for example, in preparing the 2015 nuclear deal). The West’s trust is based on Oman’s reputation as a reliable broker that does not support hostile actions and effectively ensures private contacts. This allows Oman to arrange prisoner exchanges, humanitarian negotiations, and “quiet diplomacy”.
Full version: After Oman announced a temporary corridor.. Iran warns against sailing outside its routes in the Strait of Hormuz