Iran Deputy FM Gharibabadi says understanding with Oman on the Strait of Hormuz does not mean opening the Strait of Hormuz

• Before taking any action to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the US must fully implement all its violated commitments.
• In the understanding with Oman, the route into the strait is completely at our disposal, and part of the exit route is also in Iranian waters; also, the distance between the two routes is not long.

Statements of this kind follow a familiar pattern in Gulf standoffs: intermediaries, with Oman the customary channel between Tehran and Washington, surface with a framework, and each side then issues clarifications that walk back any implication of concession. The deputy FM's distinction, an understanding with Muscat versus an actual reopening, fits the established sequence where de-escalation headlines precede the operational reality by some distance. Conditioning any reopening on full implementation of prior commitments is the standard Iranian negotiating posture and has historically been the sticking point that stalls such processes. For the crude complex the operative channel is freight, insurance and war-risk premia on Gulf transit plus the prompt spread structure, which in past episodes of this kind has retained a geopolitical bid until tanker traffic and insurer behaviour confirm normalisation rather than rhetoric. The distinction worth drawing is between transit at Iran's discretion and open transit: the former keeps a chokepoint premium embedded, the latter removes it. The tells to follow are physical, tanker tracking, charter rates and any matching statement from Washington or Muscat, rather than further Iranian messaging.