Oman told U.S. officials it would not join Iran in charging tolls in the Strait of Hormuz after a direct warning from President Trump, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says he secured that pledge in a phone call with Oman’s ambassador the next day.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters Thursday that Oman has pledged not to participate in Iran’s scheme to charge tolls on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, a commitment secured just one day after President Trump warned the Gulf nation to “behave just like everybody else, or we will have to blow them up.” Bessent said he spoke directly with the Omani ambassador and received a clear assurance: no tolling and no cooperation with Tehran’s plan. The timing — presidential warning, ambassador call, public assurance — was less than twenty-four hours.
Iran had circulated a draft proposal suggesting that Tehran and Oman jointly “manage” the strait once commercial traffic resumed. The implication was straightforward: a coastal state could convert control of a chokepoint into a revenue stream by charging ships for passage. Without Oman’s cooperation, Iran cannot practically enforce any tolls because the strait lies between their waters.
A separate U.S. agreement proposal rejected tolls and left out any language about Iran or Oman “managing” the waterway. The contrast between the two drafts illustrated where leverage sat and why U.S. pressure mattered. In short, the administration pushed a plan that preserved open access rather than creating new charges for global commerce.
Bessent did not rely on talk alone; he warned the ambassador that moving toward tolling would expose Omani individuals and financial institutions to U.S. sanctions. That threat carries weight because Oman depends on access to the global dollar system and international finance. Bessent said the Omani side understood the stakes and declined to risk sanctions for people and banks.
“I told him that this was a nonstarter.”
The Omani diplomat framed the relationship in long-term terms, emphasizing historic ties and the desire to preserve them. “Our countries have had 200 years of good relations; he wants to have another 200 more,” Bessent recounted as the ambassador’s sentiment. That diplomatic language signaled a calculation: the cost of defiance outweighed whatever short-term gain tolls might bring.
The Oman episode came amid a broader U.S. campaign of pressure on Tehran, which the administration said was intended to restore leverage in stalled negotiations. Military measures and sanctions authority were part of that campaign, and officials described coordinated steps to prevent any revenue scheme for Iran that depended on coercing shipping. The combined diplomatic and economic pressure aimed to make the toll option unattractive and impractical.
The situation on the water also mattered. U.S. forces had been ordered to interdict vessels in international waters that paid illegal tolls, an instruction meant to deny safe passage to any ship that collaborated with a coercive fee regime. Commanders framed enforcement as impartial, applying to vessels linked to toll payments regardless of nationality. That posture turned a diplomatic threat into a credible operational risk for anyone considering payment.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard issued threats in response, warning that no port in the region would be safe if its ports were threatened, but those warnings did not alter the operational picture. Despite bluster, the combination of sanctions exposure and naval enforcement changed the incentives on the ground and at sea. Tehran eventually shifted tone and announced the strait was “completely open” for commercial ships.
The administration also described cooperation on removing sea mines from shipping lanes, while keeping a blockade of Iranian ports in place until final agreements were reached. The policy linked maritime safety with leverage: lanes would be cleared, but defensive measures and sanctions would remain until negotiations finished. That approach aimed to secure freedom of navigation while preserving bargaining power.
Bessent framed the president’s blunt warning as a defense of navigational freedom rather than reckless provocation. He argued the United States was enforcing a longstanding principle that international waterways must remain open to commerce without extortion. The Strait of Hormuz is the single most important chokepoint for global energy flows, so allowing tolls would amount to a tax on consumers worldwide.
Iran’s attempt to monetize the strait was never only about income; it was leverage against the wider world. Officials believe ending that leverage prevents future coercion and preserves regional stability. Defense leaders similarly argued that Tehran had lost the ability to treat the strait as a bargaining chip once the U.S. and partners pushed back decisively.
Reporters pressed whether tough rhetoric risked new conflicts, but the follow-up phone call and the Omani pledge showed a different pattern: clear words, immediate diplomacy, and compliance without shots fired. That sequence — threat, contact, concession — repeated across the administration’s posture toward Tehran. In this case, the line between what looked like recklessness and what produced leverage was the speed and clarity of U.S. action.
Some practical questions remain unanswered: the exact terms of Iran’s draft, the full text of the U.S. proposal, the ambassador’s name, and whether Oman has published a formal statement. The operational meaning of two countries “managing” the strait was also never spelled out. Those gaps mean further scrutiny will follow, even as the core outcome stands: Oman agreed not to join Iran’s toll scheme after direct U.S. pressure.
Diplomacy and deterrence worked together in this episode. Credible sanctions threats, backed by naval enforcement and a presidential warning, produced a quick reversal. Oman chose to preserve long-standing ties and avoid the economic cost of defiance, and U.S. officials presented that choice as proof that firmness can secure maritime freedom without resorting to war.
