Iran e Oman Vicini a un Accordo sullo Stretto di Hormuz
1h ago|4 min letturaStandard
Fazen Markets Editorial Desk
Collective editorial team · methodology
strait-of-hormuziran
Fazen Markets Editorial Desk
Collective editorial team · methodology
Trades XAUUSD 24/5 on autopilot. Verified Myfxbook performance. Free forever.
Risk warning: CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. The majority of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs. Vortex HFT is informational software — not investment advice. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Reports indicate Iran and Oman are nearing an agreement to establish a new framework for managing shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. The proposed deal would place vessel movements under joint Iranian-Omani supervision, marking a significant departure from the waterway's status as an unrestricted international passage. A senior Iranian source told Reuters that under the arrangement, vessels entering the Persian Gulf would require Iranian clearance, while outbound traffic would be handled by Oman. The plan also includes collecting "service fees" from oil tankers, with revenue shared equally between the two nations. The development occurs as global markets monitor energy-related assets, with NIO trading at $4,81, down 0,62% for the day as of 10:59 UTC today, within a range of $4,76 to $4,89.
The Strait of Hormuz is the world's most important oil transit chokepoint, with an estimated 20% of global petroleum liquids consumption passing through its narrow channels. The last major disruption to shipping occurred during the 2019-2021 "tanker wars," when attacks on vessels and seizures by Iranian forces caused insurance premiums to spike and contributed to oil price volatility. The current geopolitical landscape, characterized by persistent tensions between Iran and Western powers, provides the immediate catalyst for this bilateral initiative. The reported framework aims to restore commercial flows while establishing a security oversight mechanism in the aftermath of recent regional conflict, directly challenging the longstanding US-led security architecture that has underpinned free navigation for decades.
The proposed operational split assigns specific lanes based on direction of travel. Inbound ships to the Persian Gulf would use the northern lane closer to Iran's coast, while outbound vessels would use the southern lane near Oman. The financial component involves "service fees" for oil tankers, though specific fee structures are not yet disclosed. For context, the waterway sees immense daily traffic; in 2023, an average of 20,5 milioni di barili al giorno (bpd) di petrolio greggio e condensato sono passati attraverso lo stretto. This volume represents roughly 20% of global oil demand. A comparison of key maritime chokepoints shows the Strait of Malacca handles approximately 16 milioni di bpd, while the Suez Canal handles around 5,5 milioni di bpd of oil and refined products. The potential for new fees introduces a direct cost variable for a significant portion of global energy trade.
| Chokepoint | Estimated Oil Flow (Million bpd) | Primary Governance |
|---|---|---|
| Strait of Hormuz | 20,5 | Potential Iran-Oman Joint Oversight |
| Strait of Malacca | 16,0 | International (Littoral States) |
| Suez Canal | 5,5 | Egypt (Suez Canal Authority) |
Implementation would create a direct, positive impact on shipping and energy companies with significant exposure to the Persian Gulf, as a formalized framework could reduce the immediate risk of supply disruptions and insurance costs. Tanker operators like Frontline (FRO) and Euronav (EURN) could see reduced war risk premiums, while Gulf national oil companies like Saudi Aramco (2222.SR) and ADNOC would benefit from more predictable export logistics. The counter-argument, strongly advanced by the US, is that any formal Iranian role sets a dangerous precedent for politicizing international waterways and could become a tool for use, acting as a soft floor under oil prices. Market positioning is likely bifurcated; commodity trading advisors may build long oil positions on geopolitical risk premia, while long-only energy funds might focus on the operational certainty a deal could provide. A clear risk is that the disagreement over the need for Iranian approval, highlighted by a US official's rejection of the claim, perpetuates uncertainty.
The next catalyst is the formal announcement or rejection of the bilateral memorandum of understanding between Iran and Oman, which could occur within weeks. Following that, the reaction of other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, will be critical for regional cohesion. Traders should monitor the weekly EIA petroleum status report for changes in inventory draws or builds that signal market anticipation of disruption. Key price levels to watch for Brent crude include the psychological $85 per barrel support level and the 200-day moving average, currently around $83,50. A breakdown in talks would likely see a retreat from any risk premium, while a signed deal that includes fees would test the market's tolerance for new transit costs.
In the near term, the prospect of a reopening framework is price-supportive as it reduces immediate supply disruption risks. However, the long-term effect is ambiguous. The introduction of Iranian-supervised fees adds a new, permanent cost layer for roughly 20% of global oil shipments, which could embed a higher baseline price. This would be offset if the deal enhances security and predictability, lowering the volatility premium. The strong US opposition ensures geopolitical tension remains a background support.
The Suez and Panama Canals charge formal, published tolls based on vessel size and cargo, administered by national authorities (Egypt, Panama) under international treaties. The proposed Hormuz "service fees" differ because they are framed as payments for security and environmental protection, not straightforward transit dues, and would be administered by a party (Iran) that lacks broad international recognition for this role, creating a novel governance model.
Iran's claim is based on its interpretation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which it is not a party. Iran asserts that the strait falls within its territorial seas and contiguous zone, allowing it to regulate navigation for security and environmental reasons. The prevailing international view, upheld by the US and others, designates the strait as an international waterway with rights of transit passage, which prohibits coastal states from impeding or charging for transit.
The potential Iran-Oman deal represents the most significant challenge in decades to the principle of free navigation through the world's foremost oil chokepoint.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. CFD trading carries high risk of capital loss.
Vortex HFT is our free MT4/MT5 Expert Advisor. Verified Myfxbook performance. No subscription. No fees. Trades 24/5.
Navigate market volatility with professional tools
Start TradingSponsored
Open a demo account in 30 seconds. No deposit required.
CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.