Alwaght- Over the past few days, a series of diplomatic and military developments have shown that Strait of Hormuz crisis is not a mere regional dispute, rather, it is a scene determining a balance of power among the US, Iran, and the world great powers.
The intensive talks between Iran and Oman over a new transit mechanism in the Strait of Hormuz, ongoing US blockade over Iran, tangible drop in the ship transit, and oil prices rise all show that the two sides have reached a point where there is neither a possibility of outright military win nor a return to the past status of thr strait.
Recent reports suggest Iran and Oman have reached a preliminary agreement on the coordinates of a new maritime route, under which a major portion of the shipping lane would pass through Iranian territorial waters and the remainder through Omani waters.
Washington, however, is still insisting that no country, least of all the Islamic Republic, should oversee vessel traffic, issue transit permits, or levy any fees. The core dispute remains unresolved, and it starts right here: this isn't about reopening a strait, but about who holds sovereignty, and, by extension, control.
Factors leading to Trump's failure in reopening the strait
Meanwhile, the US President is facing a stalemate many observers call a strategic paradox.
Since the start of the 40-day war, the US government has gone to great lengths including launching airstrikes and tightening the sea blockade but none of its actions against Tehran have managed to return the transit in the Strait of Hormuz to normal. So, Trump is facing a reality the US politicians have feared since 1980s: The military superiority does not necessarily mean the power to impose it on the asymmetrical battlegrounds, like Strait of Hormuz crisis.
But the primary reason Washington keeps coming up short is geography. Iran does not just dominate the northern coastline of the Strait of Hormuz, but also it operates an extensive network of missile batteries, drone systems, underground facilities, and strategic islands.
That footprint means that even when the US Navy enjoys overwhelming superiority in open waters, and even after multiple rounds of escalation, Tehran can still disrupt shipping traffic at minimal cost. In effect, Iran's strategy is not about sinking American warships; it is about sowing doubt, driving up costs, and slowly eroding the political will of Washington and its allies.
Then there are the political and economic constraints that Trump and the US are wrestling with.
Sustained operations in the Persian Gulf require dozens of warships, surveillance aircraft, anti-missile systems, and support personnel. On top of that, many military analysts argue that fully securing the key waterway is nearly impossible without ground forces inside Iranian territory. Such a move would not just impose crippling costs on the US, it could also trigger a backlash from the US public, especially at a time when rising energy prices and economic anxieties have become defining issues in domestic politics.
This comes as Trump and the Republican Party have an election ahead. From now, the intert-party voting have made it clear that Trump's failure on the war have substantially impacted the candidates.
Another issue is the nature of hostility in the war. Until recently, the key question was about Iran's capability to close the Strait of Hormuz, but now the question is this: Who has the right to control this waterway?
Iran has effectively tied an end to the conflict to a final resolution on the strait, and to cementing its sovereign authority over its management. Washington, for its part, fears that accepting such an arrangement would set a dangerous precedent for other strategic chokepoints around the world. In that sense, Hormuz is not just a waterway; it is a proxy for the future of the international order.
Meanwhile, Oman has become as a crucial player. Muscat has carefully maintained ties with both sides over the years, and is now leveraging that position to try to restore a non-belligerent status in the region. The fact that both Tehran and Washington trust Oman has turned it into the crisis's most vital mediator. That's why many analysts believe the strait's fate will ultimately be decided less in Tehran or Washington than in Muscat.
Scenarios for Hormuz
There are three scenarios in sight for the future of the strait:
First scenario: a temporary agreement between Iran and Oman, leading to a phased reopening of maritime routes. In this case, Washington, despite official objections, would likely be forced to accept some limited, de facto role for Iran.
Second scenario: a continuation of the current war of attrition, with naval blockades, sporadic strikes, and spiraling insurance and shipping costs dragging on indefinitely.
Third scenario: an escalation into a full-blown regional confrontation that could draw in the Arab Gulf states, China, and even Europe in various ways.
Yet for all that, victory does not appear within reach for any side right now. Iran has clearly figured out that it does not need to fully control the strait to rattle the global economy and pressure Washington, but just needs to create the perception that transit is not entirely safe. The US, in turn, has realized that military supremacy alone can not substitute for political and legal arrangements, nor can it impose a new legal regime on the waterway.
Perhaps that is why the Strait of Hormuz crisis, more than ever, has become a clash between two irreconcilable logics: the logic of power and the logic of geography. And for now, at least, geography seems to be holding the upper hand, leaving Tehran able to keep the pressure on the US by leaning on it.
