On Saturday, Iran established preconditions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz. These conditions include demands for compensation for war damages, which complicate a potential agreement to reopen this crucial waterway vital to the global economy.
Since the United States and Israel launched an attack on Iran in late February, Tehran has effectively blockaded the Strait. It is now seeking to impose tolls for passage through its waters and has been attacking ships it claims are trying to bypass their designated route.
Ongoing assaults in the strait, which was open for passage prior to the conflict, resulted in the breakdown of an April ceasefire. Since then, mediators have been encouraging both parties to adhere again to a June agreement’s provisions.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that talks with Oman regarding the transit and management of the strait are “nearing completion.” However, he noted that reopening Hormuz “depends on other conditions and compensation for breaching” the June agreement.
On Saturday, Security Chief Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr presented a set of demands to reopen the strait. These include halting any “war and aggression against Iran and its allies in Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, and Iraq.”
According to remarks reported by Tasnim news agency, he additionally called for the removal of a concurrent US naval blockade on Iran, the lifting of sanctions, the release of frozen assets, and compensation for wartime damages.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guards stated that the reopening of Hormuz was “unrelated to negotiations between Iran and Oman,” emphasizing that the “adversary is compelled to accept Iran’s terms for opening the strait.”
These remarks were made following a significant decline in transit through the Strait of Hormuz, as Iran has been targeting ships that it accuses of bypassing its preferred route within Iranian waters.
On Saturday, the United Arab Emirates’ foreign ministry denounced what it described as a “hostile Iranian attack.” A missile targeted an ADNOC (Abu Dhabi National Oil Company) tanker while it was passing through the Strait of Hormuz, fortunately causing no casualties.
On Saturday, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) reported that a vessel in the Strait of Hormuz near Oman was struck by a projectile. This incident resulted in a fire, which was subsequently extinguished without any casualties. It remains uncertain if this report pertains to the same ship mentioned earlier.
On Friday, ADNOC released a statement indicating that since the onset of the war, 15 of its vessels have been attacked in Hormuz, with “three vessels targeted just this week.”
n Saturday, Oman’s foreign ministry expressed strong disapproval of the “repeated attacks on vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz,” deliberately omitting any mention of Iran.
It also stated that “ongoing negotiations about navigation arrangements in the Strait of Hormuz are progressing positively and constructively,” and advised against any actions that could undermine this progress.
arrangements for the strait in consultation with other Gulf nations and “in accordance with applicable international law.”
International law typically prohibits the imposition of tolls in these waterways.
The Turkish foreign minister stated on Saturday that he anticipates Egypt’s inclusion in a joint defense agreement with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan aimed at stabilizing the region. He referred to Egypt as a “natural partner on all issues.”
Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan expressed in an interview his belief that Egypt will join the alliance at the next stage. He noted that they already interact with each other as though they are members of the alliance.
Last month, a drone hit US assets at an Egyptian port on the Mediterranean Sea. This incident marked the first drone attack on Egyptian soil since the start of the Iran conflict.
Fidan stated that the agreement is not aimed at any particular country.
According to the news agency, he said that they have not documented any mutual threat.
On Friday, Pakistan’s foreign ministry stated that the agreement signifies that an attack on any member would be considered an assault on everyone. They added that it is designed to “enhance collective deterrence.”
