Officials familiar with the emerging proposal have said that, under the new framework, vessels heading into the Persian Gulf would have to transit a channel controlled by Iran, while outbound ships would travel on a channel near Oman, reports NYT

Proposals to formalise traffic separation through the Strait of Hormuz sit within a long history of routing and convoy arrangements in that waterway, which have tended to emerge after periods of tanker harassment or seizure as a way of reducing friction rather than as genuine closures. The detail that matters is the asymmetry: an inbound channel under Iranian control versus an outbound lane nearer Oman would give Tehran a practical chokepoint over Gulf imports even while crude exports keep moving, and past episodes suggest the leverage value of such arrangements lies in the implicit threat rather than its use. The transmission channel in comparable episodes has run through war-risk insurance premia, freight rates and rerouting costs first, with the crude flat price following only when physical flows are actually interrupted, a distinction that has repeatedly separated headline spikes from sustained repricing. Attribution matters here: sourcing is to officials on an emerging proposal, which in prior negotiations of this kind has meant a trial balloon, and the tells are whether Iranian and Omani authorities confirm, whether maritime authorities issue routing guidance, and whether underwriters adjust Gulf transit rates. The proposal's durability will also depend on the posture of the naval powers that have historically guaranteed freedom of navigation in the strait. Until confirmation, the read is that this is a negotiating artefact rather than an operational change.