Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Baghaei says Iran’s conditions for ending the war on all fronts and restoring security to the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz have been clearly set out

Iranian statements of this kind, in which Tehran frames its conditions as already communicated and pairs them with practical arrangements such as agreed transit coordinates, have in past standoffs marked the shift from escalation rhetoric toward the negotiation of an off-ramp, though the sequencing has historically run through weeks of public posturing before any verified de-escalation. The Oman channel is the established pattern: Muscat has repeatedly served as the intermediary between Iran and Western counterparts, and agreements on transit-route coordinates notified to the relevant international body are the technical scaffolding that precedes any normalization of Hormuz shipping rather than evidence of it. The operative distinction is between transit arrangements, which affect the immediate freight, war-risk insurance, and tanker-routing premia, and the broader conditions for ending the war on all fronts, which remain a negotiating position rather than an outcome. Precedent in comparable episodes is that crude and product markets unwind geopolitical premia faster than the physical risks actually clear, with insurance rates and charter availability lagging any diplomatic headline. The tells worth watching are confirmation from the other parties involved, any matching statement from the international body receiving the coordinates, and whether tanker traffic through the strait actually resumes on the stated routes. As a spokesperson's framing rather than a signed agreement, the signal is directional toward de-escalation but unverified.