Iranian Revolutionary Guards Challenge Oman’s Hormuz Corridor Amid US Tolls Dispute
IRGC warns ships off Oman s corridor – On Thursday, June 25, 2026, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) issued a stark warning to maritime vessels traversing the Strait of Hormuz. The IRGC declared that all ships passing through the critical waterway must adhere to routes specified by Tehran, asserting that any deviation constitutes an illegal act. This declaration directly contradicted Oman’s recent announcement of a temporary corridor for commercial traffic near its coastline, a move intended to ease congestion in the strait. The IRGC’s message emphasized the strategic importance of the route, framing it as a necessity for security and stability in the region.
IRGC Asserts Control Over Hormuz Navigation
In a statement, the IRGC outlined that the only authorized pathways for vessels to transit the strait were those officially designated by Iran. It warned that ships operating outside these boundaries faced heightened risks and were subject to Iran’s full authority. The IRGC criticized a prior corridor proposal—aligned with Oman’s plan—as “unacceptable and completely dangerous,” stating it was introduced without prior consultation with Tehran. The warning concluded with a firm statement that violators would face consequences, though specifics were omitted.
The IRGC’s stance intensified concerns over the strategic control of the strait. Iran’s parliament National Security Commission secretary, Behnam Saeedi, reiterated that military forces had complete authority over the waterway. He warned that any miscalculation in the area would provoke a “decisive response,” underscoring Iran’s determination to assert dominance. Saeedi also highlighted Iran’s expectation that the U.S. would demonstrate compliance with the framework deal, including the release of frozen assets and removal of maritime restrictions, not just in rhetoric but in action.
US Opposition to Transit Fees Sparks Tensions
Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio took a firm position during a GCC ministerial meeting in Bahrain, declaring Washington would not accept any fees or tolls under any name. “You can call it a toll, you can call it a fee, at the end of the day it’s all semantics,” Rubio said, dismissing Iran’s proposals as a guise for financial gain. He emphasized that no single nation owns the Strait of Hormuz, thus no country has the right to charge for its use. This stance directly countered Iran’s attempts to leverage the corridor as a tool for economic leverage.
Rubio’s comments came amid reports that three oil tankers using Oman’s southern corridor had reversed course into the Persian Gulf after being warned by the IRGC Navy. The incident underscored the growing friction between Tehran and Washington over control of the strait. Oceans Ministry officials in South Korea separately confirmed that five vessels operated by their country had successfully navigated the strait, suggesting that maritime operations remained active despite the disputes.
Framework Deal Under Scrutiny by Iranian Hardliners
Iranian hardliners have been exerting pressure on the negotiation team, citing a message attributed to Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei. The message expressed reservations about the framework deal but ultimately endorsed it. This document has been used by hardline factions to justify Iran’s refusal to relinquish its influence over the strait. Khamenei’s endorsement, while not a complete rejection of the agreement, has been interpreted as a sign that Tehran aims to maintain its leverage.
Earlier, President Donald Trump had claimed that Iran had assured Washington it would not impose fees, threatening to halt talks if this proved false. The competing claims between Iran and the U.S. highlight the broader geopolitical tensions surrounding the strait’s control. While the IRGC and hardliners push for strict regulation, the U.S. advocates for open access and opposes financial charges.
Gradual Normalization of Traffic Amid Rising Uncertainty
Despite the ongoing disputes, shipping data from the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) revealed a slow but steady return to normalcy. On Tuesday, 13 vessels transited the strait, followed by 32 on Wednesday and 12 by Thursday morning. This pattern, part of a UN-coordinated evacuation plan, aimed to clear hundreds of stranded ships and thousands of seafarers from the region. However, the volume remained below pre-conflict levels, with 70 passages recorded on Wednesday—the highest since March 1, 2026, the day after hostilities began.
Marine data firm Lloyd’s List Intelligence noted a significant increase in crossings, with 125 vessels transiting last week compared to 33 the previous week. Richard Meade, editor-in-chief of Lloyd’s List, explained that the uptick in traffic reflected the actions of “opportunistic operators” exploiting the reduced risk of transit. “They’ve begun chasing the backlog of trapped cargoes that built up during the conflict,” he said. Nonetheless, the rate of passage still lagged behind the daily average of 130 or more ships that had been typical before the war.
Impact on Oil Markets and Global Trade
The disputes over the strait’s control have not only affected maritime operations but also influenced global oil markets. Brent crude prices dipped to their lowest level since February 27, 2026, the day before the conflict began, signaling investor concerns over the stability of the region. Analysts pointed to the uncertainty as a key factor in the market’s decline, with traders wary of potential disruptions to supply chains.
Oman’s Foreign Minister, Sayyid Badr Al Busaidi, defended the corridor proposal during the GCC meeting, emphasizing Muscat’s responsibility as a coastal state to support international efforts in securing navigation. He argued that future arrangements for the strait should exclude transit fees, aligning with the U.S. position. However, the IRGC’s resistance to this idea has created a stalemate, with both sides vying for control of the waterway’s usage and pricing.
As the situation evolves, the balance between Iran’s security interests and the U.S.’s economic concerns remains precarious. The IRGC’s warnings, combined with Oman’s diplomatic efforts, have sparked a complex interplay of coercion, negotiation, and international law. With the strait serving as a vital artery for global oil trade, any resolution will need to address both the strategic and economic dimensions of the dispute.
Amid these developments, the UN’s evacuation plan continues to play a crucial role in restoring order. The coordinated effort has allowed for the gradual movement of vessels, although challenges persist. As the number of crossings rises, so does the hope for a lasting agreement. Yet, the shadow of conflict looms large, with tensions threatening to disrupt the flow of energy resources and international commerce.
In the end, the Strait of Hormuz stands as a symbol of the broader struggle between Iran and the U.S. The IRGC’s assertion of control, Rubio’s vocal opposition to tolls, and the conflicting proposals from Oman and Tehran all point to a deeply divided landscape. The next steps will determine whether the corridor can serve as a bridge for cooperation or a battleground for dominance.
