As news spread of Iran-Oman discussions on arrangements for managing and monitoring navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, US and Western media launched a coordinated narrative aimed at promoting one central claim: that the closure of the Strait stemmed solely from disagreements over traffic management, and that Tehran-Muscat talks are now paving the way for its imminent reopening.

While this narrative may reassure global energy markets and Western public opinion, it fails to reflect the real reasons behind Iran's decision to close the Strait.

The ongoing discussions between Iran and Oman focus on vessel transit arrangements, maritime safety, and mechanisms for managing navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. Such talks are neither new nor unusual. As the two littoral states bordering the waterway, Iran and Oman routinely coordinate on technical and operational maritime issues. From that perspective, the talks are a natural requirement for managing one of the world's most important shipping lanes.

The problem arises when these technical discussions are portrayed as proof that "Hormuz will definitely reopen." That is where the US media narrative diverges from reality.

Washington is seeking to reduce the Hormuz issue to a purely technical matter, thereby shifting political and security responsibility for the crisis away from itself. If that narrative takes hold, it creates the impression that a few expert-level meetings between Tehran and Muscat are enough to resolve the issue, when in reality the matter goes far beyond navigation procedures.

From Tehran's perspective, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz resulted from a broader set of political and security developments, not simply maritime management disputes. Accordingly, the understandings reached under the Islamabad agreement remain decisive. Issues including the release of Iran's financial assets, full implementation of commitments related to the Lebanon ceasefire, and fulfillment of obligations concerning the security and management of the Strait of Hormuz, as stipulated in Article 5 of the Islamabad memorandum of understanding, remain unresolved.

The conclusion is therefore clear: even if Iran and Oman reach a comprehensive agreement on navigation mechanisms, that alone will not necessarily change the status of the Strait of Hormuz. A technical agreement is a necessary condition for managing maritime traffic, but it is not sufficient for reopening the Strait.

In other words, Tehran-Muscat talks may determine how vessels transit the Strait, but any decision to reactivate that route depends on broader political and security considerations. Those claiming that "Hormuz will reopen soon" are conflating two separate issues: technical maritime traffic management and the resolution of political and security disputes between Iran and the US.

From this perspective, the two are fundamentally different and operate on separate levels. That is why the Iran-Oman talks are strictly bilateral and should not be interpreted as the beginning of an agreement between Tehran and Washington.

If the Strait of Hormuz is to return to normal operations, that will not happen simply through agreements on shipping routes or navigation procedures. It requires addressing the political and security factors that triggered the crisis, as well as US action to change its conduct and fulfill the commitments expected by Iran.

What is taking place today is a negotiation over managing traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, not necessarily a negotiation over reopening it. Ignoring that distinction is the mistake that some media outlets are deliberately, or inadvertently, promoting, creating a misleading picture of the Hormuz issue for both global public opinion and international markets.