back
17 comments
Friday afternoon, the markets have closed, time to start shooting again.

if the pattern holds, on Sunday evening we'll have some good news about "negotiations making progress" or "ceasefire but this time we'll actually cease firing" or whatever, with the goal of boosting the stock market for Monday morning.

> “The MOU was a one-and-a-half-page document where ambiguity was the feature and not the bug,” he explained. “There was a lot of ambiguity to be filled in later.” ... Erye said Iran agreed to allow traffic to resume — but under its administration and with its permission. That clashed with the US vision for the strait.

As the US Diplomat points out the MoU is ambiguous about many things, but section 5 of the MoU is clear that Iran agreed to allow shipping only under its administration, at least for the 60 days period (with passage in the future to be negotiated later):

> 5. Upon the signing of this MoU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels, with no charge for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman, and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles, and de-mining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman, to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz, in discussions with other Persian Gulf Littoral States, in line with applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.

An Iranian diplomat has also reiterated this - Senior Iranian diplomat says ceasefire agreement with US requires ships passing the strait of Hormuz to coordinate with Iran - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2026/jun/26/trump-n... .

Where is Oman in this? Where does the concept of territorial waters, exclusive economic zones go in a narrow straight? What does this mean for the straights of Malacca, Luzon?
Oman is small state in the region with not much influence other than what the regional and superpowers allow it.

It was diplomatically smart for Iran to rope in Oman on its future plans for the administration of the Strait as the involvement of multiple states makes it a more regional security-economic undertaking, giving it more credence and making it harder to oppose at least some aspect of the arrangement. (Oman can't really say no here as Iran is a regional power with whom it does have to cooperate and share the Strait).

The US has tried to outmanoeuvre Iran by pressuring Oman to not cooperate with Iran and join its own "regional" system of administrating the Strait, that excludes Iran. (Oman, again has no choice here as it cannot say no to a superpower). And so we now see Oman announcing a temporary parallel "transit corridor" within the Strait (perhaps as a precursor to this), with the International Maritime Organization. Here IMO has been made the authority that ships will communicate with to go through the Strait. The temporary association with IMO is to give Muscat some diplomatic cover from Iran which is naturally all pissed about this, as it recognises that the whole idea particularly seeks to undermine what was stated in the Islamabad MoU - that Iran will coordinate the passage of ships during the 60 days.

(That is why this recent firing, and retaliation, occurred. Iran has already won a temporary minor victory as IMO has now announced that it is temporarily backing out. But the US has gained a good advantage too now as this places Iran in a very difficult position on how to deal with Oman and future negotiations on the Strait).

As the weaker party, Oman is just going along for the ride and trying hard not to get caught between the Israel / US and Iran political and military confrontation. As far as it is concerned, if Tehran manages to pull this off, Muscat will also benefit economically and politically. If Washington pulls its off, Muscat will still benefit politically as it will control the Strait (by proxy for the US). If both fail, Muscat still benefits as status quo remains while its ties with both countries improves and its own regional standing increases a bit due to the increased international exposure from all this activity.

----

As for what it means for the future of maritime routes, note that historically tolls along certain routes / Straits was quite common before the west became a maritime and imperial power. The only reason that they abolished it is because the imperial powers did most of the trading (and the west still does) and so they paid the most tolls. Today too, the west would have to pay a lot more on tolls and that is why they continue opposing it, as do some other emerging economies. But if you favour capitalism, why shouldn't a country be allowed to charge a toll - what makes a narrow sea route, under sovereign control, different from a land route?

----

1. Oman, Iran form ‘joint working group’ on future management of Strait of Hormuz - https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260623-oman-iran-form-jo...

2. Strait of Hormuz as strategic red line: Why Iran must confront Oman's corridor plan and Trump's threats - https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/06/25/771078/strait-hormu...

3. Oman with IMO announces transit corridor in Strait of Hormuz - https://thepeninsulaqatar.com/article/24/06/2026/oman-with-i...

4. IMO pauses evacuation in Strait of Hormuz following attack - https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/pressbriefings/pages/stat...

5. Freedom of Navigation - https://sites.tufts.edu/lawofthesea/chapter-three/

I assume that there's a team of war planners for this. They're taking into account strategic planning where they look at the cultural advantages of the strait closure as well as the tactical advantages of closing the strait again from Iran's side. Oh fuck it. There's no spin to this. Nevermind. Enjoy another six months of no oil traffic. Good for Israel bad for everyone else.
It's fascinating to see the battle between Trump's ego and self preservation instinct play out in real time.

He knows the House is as good as gone in the midterms, but adding a Democratic senate is going to make his life ten times worse, hence the capitulation to Iran in the MOU. His ego on the other hand just can't seem to let go. He landed himself in so much trouble to distract from the Epstein files, one wonders what's left to come out.

I think no matter how much you hate the administration, it's probably not a good reason to defend a terrorist group taking a nation hostage. And it's everywhere too, most if not all western news outlets and the social media in general all supporting this group one way or another. It can't be an accident. I don't think people exactly know who they are dealing with and they just go ahead with the usual Trump is bad narrative even at the cost of siding with actual terrorists who wear a tie and play whatever game you want even better than you. It just does not make any sense.
>I think no matter how much you hate the administration, it's probably not a good reason to defend a terrorist group taking a nation hostage.

I don't think anyone who hates the administration is defending the US military here.

Just, wow.
Most of the Trump bashing online is indeed based on some political ignorance of how he operates (or just the usual propaganda from the opposition). In some ways, Trump's team is to blame for this because when you deliberately ignore established political conventions, you automatically bring more attention to yourself. Now, Trump does want that attention and believes he politically benefits from it. But, as your dismay as a supporter suggests, everyone is discovering that this kind of attention is double-edged and not always necessarily positive for him. Is that a fair point?

Now, on the current Iran affair, whether you like Trump or not, you have to agree that it hasn't gone as planned. If you wish to discuss this you should share more details - please outline, honestly, which criticism directed at Trump are reasonable and which one are really unjustified, in your opinion?

My general point is not directed at Trump though, the general pattern I think is just the media turning every word coming from him into a weapon and it's kind of a tradition now. I'm more concerned about how people see the adversary, are they even see them as an adversary? I think that's actually the reason this didn't go as planned. Because people treat Iran as a democratic country and think US should be just and fair in their actions towards them. But you have to understand you are not dealing with a normal actor (there's a lot to be said about that which I'm not going to get into). If you fail to see that, of course you'd blame the very next thing the media is talking about.
Actions not words. Iran has been extremely retrained and disciplined here. USA and Israel attacked it unprovoked, and repeatedly broke "ceasefires" by literally bombing and killing Iranian leaders during a ceasefire. It's clear which is a normal actor and which isn't.
> It's clear which is a normal actor and which isn't.

Just in case you read this, something I learned over time is that the truth you believe as reality is just as good as the information that reaches you. If you get your news from this internet like I do, I wouldn't count on it.

The internet is irrelevant to it, its widely reported in both traditional media too who lied and broke ceasefires to kill the leaders of the other side.
> ... the general pattern I think is just the media turning every word coming from him into a weapon

Oh, "polarised" media now seems to be the norm around the world, and not just the US. So at one end, you have Fox News parroting Republican conservatism, while the Washington Post peddles for the Democrat Right- (here's one such example of the Washington Post engaging in pointless Trump bashing without a meaningful journalistic examination of the whole issue - https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/02/could-ukraine-have-avoid... ). The whole idea of dispassionate, if not neutral, journalism is dead today because of corporate owned media and BigTech's stranglehold on social media through which modern "news" spreads.

Also, most politically aware Americans know that there is an unspoken bi-partisan rule in the western / US media - you can never criticise Israel without prior political approval. (AIPAC, and other Israeli pressure groups, further offer incentives through ad spends to ensure this kind of media compliancy). When you factor that too into the equation, it becomes clear why Trump has become the punching bag in the media. Out of the two actors in this conflict - Israel and the US / Trump - that the Americans / west care about, the US media can act unrestrained against only one of them. Thus, the current US administration bears the brunt. And it doesn't help that it is election season too, as that is when the US media tend to be the most polarised ...

> I'm more concerned about how people see the adversary ...

Here, you cannot ignore the other irrational actor involved - Israel / Netanyahu.

Sympathy for Iran, in the west, mainly stems from comparison to Israel whose current leaders and soldiers have unfortunately projected the worst of humanity with its vulgarity and depravity in its ongoing war. If this were just a conflict between Iran and the US, Iran wouldn't have been able to arouse so much sympathy for itself. But Israel / Netanyahu have muddied the water so much with their ongoing genocide that anyone associated with them cannot escape the taint too. You'd think their blood lust would have been satisfied with the 20,000+ children they've already killed ( https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/06/1167790 ) , but no, the IDF nutcases are now shooting babies too ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/10/palestinian-ba... ) - don't Iranians look like saints in comparison to that?.

(Disclaimer: I too sympathise with the Palestinians and Iranians now, where as I was indifferent towards them before).

Another false flag attack?
No. Iran has confirmed it attacked the commercial vessel (fired "warning shots" at it), and the US has officially clarified that it did retaliate in response to this. It was just the Americans and the British testing to see how desperate Iran is to conclude a treaty and how much it could be pressured to concede further. As the Guardian reports - "The Ever Lovely, the cargo ship that was struck, had been following a route through the strait recommended by the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations when it was struck, the ship’s owner, Evergreen, said." (The UKMTO was created by the UK Royal navy).

Iranian media reports strike on pier in southern Iran near strait of Hormuz - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2026/jun/26/trump-n...