A possible temporary agreement between Tehran and Muscat over the Strait of Hormuz comes as disputes within the Pentagon and shortages of interceptor missiles raise questions over the feasibility of a military approach against Iran.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s remarks about the difficulty of contacting Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei should be understood within the context of the Iranian-Omani negotiations, which are said to have reached an agreement on organizing the routes for entry into and exit from the Strait of Hormuz. What Pezeshkian meant was that the difficulty of reaching Khamenei could delay the official announcement of the agreement, which requires the approval of the Supreme Leader and the Supreme National Security Council.
The US Treasury Department’s decision to suspend two sanctions measures against Iran reinforced the wave of optimism over the imminent announcement of the agreement’s details. However, this does not mean that the Strait will be reopened immediately, according to Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi. Iran considers the agreement merely a first step that must be followed by a US announcement lifting the naval blockade on Iranian ports and exempting oil sales from US sanctions, based on what was stated in the memorandum of understanding signed on June 17.
It can be inferred from US President Donald Trump’s statement on Wednesday that negotiations with Iran are “going well” that he may once again find himself facing the memorandum of understanding, despite the fact that its provisions clearly tip the balance in Iran’s favor. The temporary nature of the agreement, which covers a 60-day period, may help the US president argue that it is only a starting point for moving toward deeper negotiations on the future of the Strait, paving the way for addressing the more complex issue, namely Iran’s nuclear program.
Although the agreement on the Strait does not explicitly stipulate the collection of fees, it opens the door for Iran to charge for security and environmental services and, in one way or another, confirms Tehran’s authority over Hormuz. This contradicts what had prevailed before the US-Israeli war on February 28.
A statue hoisting the Iranian flag in Palestine Square in central Tehran, August 1, 2026. (AP)
As more leaks emerge about the dispute between Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth over the US military’s shortage of interceptor munitions, the reason behind Trump’s decision to call off the strikes he had threatened last week and accept what is being agreed upon between Oman and Iran is becoming increasingly clear.
Despite the White House’s official denial of a report by The Washington Post stating that Trump had blamed Hegseth for the ammunition shortage, and that Hegseth had in turn pointed the finger at his deputy, Stephen Feinberg, the report is consistent with previous reports in US media outlets about Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Dan Caine warning Trump that the Pentagon was suffering from shortages of Patriot and THAAD interceptor missiles, as well as Tomahawk precision-guided attack missiles.
The possibility of a shortage of interceptor missiles has been reinforced by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s urgent appeals to allies to provide Patriot missiles to help repel Russian missile attacks on Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities. In recent weeks, there has been a noticeable increase in the success rate of Russian attacks, whether carried out with missiles or drones, due to the Ukrainian army’s efforts to conserve its use of Patriot missiles. So far, Trump has not approved Ukraine’s production of this type of missile.
The strained relationship between Trump and Hegseth adds further complications to the Iranian issue, given that Hegseth was one of the strongest supporters of the war. Blaming the administration of former President Joe Biden does not absolve him of responsibility for the shortage of interceptor missiles, as that administration had been generous in supplying Ukraine with US weapons, including the Patriot defense system and ATACMS attack missiles.
Above all, Trump must have begun to recognize the difficulty of pursuing a purely military approach to resolving the situation with Iran. This is why he is closely following the course of negotiations currently being agreed upon between Tehran and Muscat.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar
Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter
