Iran and Oman move closer to finalising shipping routes, while Pakistan pushes for the resumption of US-Iranian dialogue, as Washington denies ammunition shortages and keeps military force on the negotiating table

Follow-up and Analysis | BETH

On day 156 of the war, negotiations over the Strait of Hormuz moved from discussing the possibility of reopening it to defining the geographical routes for ships to pass through—a practical step that brings an agreement closer, but does not yet guarantee its implementation.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry announced that Tehran and Muscat had agreed on the coordinates of the proposed routes and that the joint statement had entered its final drafting stage. Informed sources, however, said that security and operational details were still under discussion.

Iran continues to link the reopening of the strait to ending the US blockade of its ports, while Washington wants guarantees of freedom of navigation and seeks to prevent the passage arrangement from becoming recognition of Tehran’s right to control the waterway or impose fees on it.

In Islamabad, Pakistan expressed hope that an agreement on Hormuz would pave the way for the resumption of technical talks between the United States and Iran under the memorandum of understanding that Pakistan helped mediate.

Washington Denies Divisions

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump denied reports of ammunition shortages and a dispute with Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, asserting that the United States possesses massive stockpiles, is building an unprecedented number of ammunition factories, and will seek prison sentences for those who leaked the information.

However, a US official confirmed that Patriot missile stocks had fallen by approximately two-thirds and THAAD missile stocks by half, revealing that denying a shortage does not mean that some categories of defensive munitions are not under pressure.

Vice President JD Vance affirmed that the administration is united behind Trump’s decisions and is prepared to use military, economic and diplomatic tools. He also pointed to divisions within the Iranian regime between those seeking to end the war and hardliners pushing for its continuation.

Delay or Agreement?

Defining the coordinates of the routes is not an ordinary verbal manoeuvre. It is measurable technical progress and means that negotiations have moved to how navigation will be restored, rather than whether it will be restored at all.

However, Tehran has kept several avenues of retreat open by linking the agreement to the lifting of the blockade, warning against “third-party interference”, and failing to provide a public guarantee for the safety of ships.

Iran may therefore use the details to delay implementation and extract a concession from the United States. This time, however, it faces military and economic pressure that makes it difficult to prolong negotiations indefinitely.

Who Is Leading the Scene?

Statements by Iranian officials, particularly commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, seek to portray Tehran as the party leading both the war and the negotiations, despite not being the stronger side in the balance of the conflict.

This rhetoric is intended to preserve internal cohesion, prevent the agreement from appearing to be a surrender to US pressure, and maintain an image suggesting deterrence abroad. Iran is attempting to compensate for its weakness on the battlefield by controlling the narrative of the war and presenting any concession as something it secured in return, rather than a retreat imposed upon it.

Outlook

The most likely scenario is the announcement of an initial maritime understanding within days, followed by the gradual reopening of designated routes under Iranian-Omani coordination, rather than an immediate return to full navigation.

The safe passage of the first ships will be the real test. An agreement may be written in ink, but only the sea can prove that Hormuz has reopened.

Broader US-Iranian talks will remain tied to Tehran’s practical compliance. This time, continued delay may cease to be a means of buying time and instead become the reason that brings a US strike back to the forefront.