NextFin News - Iran and the Gulf Arab states are preparing to meet on a new security and administration deal for the Strait of Hormuz, as Tehran presses to convert its wartime grip on the world's most important oil chokepoint into a permanent management role. The talks follow the expiration of a 60-day toll-free passage window agreed in a June memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran, and they come as Iran announced a new restricted zone in the Gulf and maps for a shipping corridor it would control. Oil prices have rallied on the back of the standoff — Brent crude rose to $109.09 a barrel on September 10, up 7.8% on the day and more than 22% over the past month — and Gulf exporters are facing the bill for a reopening that was supposed to be the easy part of the peace.
The trigger is procedural but the stakes are not. Under the June US-Iran memorandum of understanding, Iran allowed commercial traffic through Hormuz for 60 days without tolls. That window has now closed. The deal's own terms called for follow-on talks with Oman and the Gulf states on how the strait would be administered going forward — and that is the meeting now taking shape.
The timing is tense. On September 7, Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told state television that Tehran would announce a new restricted zone in the Gulf "in the coming days," along with maps of a new shipping corridor through the strait. The zone, he said, would begin where the US blockade of Iran begins and extend into areas of the Gulf; any vessel entering it would be added to a sanctions list.
The maps of a new international corridor which lies in Iranian and Omani waters and in which Iran will have management have been agreed and should be signed in the coming days.
Rezaei said in the September 7 interview. The conditionality was explicit: "We will only commit to the Strait of Hormuz being open when they (the Americans) stop the sabotage, threats and attacks on Iran."
On the water, the channel is far from normal. An average of 10 commodity ships a day transited the strait over the 10 days to September 7, the lowest level since May, according to data from analytics firm Kpler. The 10-day moving average had been more than 15 on Friday and nearly 13 on Saturday. Before the conflict, about 100 ships passed through the strait each day, more than half of them tankers, carrying tens of millions of barrels of oil. Roughly one-fifth of global oil supplies flowed through the channel at its narrowest point, just 21 miles wide.
Oil is reacting sharply. Brent crude, the international benchmark, rose to $109.09 a barrel on September 10, up 7.79% from the previous day, according to market data. Over the past month Brent is up 22.7%, and it is up 64.4% from a year earlier. US West Texas Intermediate crude was trading around $94 a barrel earlier in the week, after closing up 1.7% on Tuesday. The risk premium has returned even as US Energy Secretary Chris Wright told CNN that transits through the strait were averaging more than 9 million barrels a day — "two-thirds or more of pre-conflict flows."
The military backdrop to the talks is deteriorating, not improving. US forces struck three Iranian oil tankers on Saturday, including one off Kharg Island, Iran's key export hub, following attacks by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on US warships in the region, US Central Command said. In retaliation, the IRGC navy said it targeted three oil tankers travelling unauthorized routes in the strait as well as three additional US vessels in other areas. Maritime intelligence firm Marisks called the Saturday attacks a "major escalation in the maritime conflict," saying:
Commercial tankers are now being deliberately used as instruments of reciprocal economic pressure.
There have been 27 projectile strike incidents since July 6, resulting in damage to vessels operating in and around the strait, the UK Maritime Trade Operations agency said in its weekly report.
The 60-Day Deal Was the Easy Part; Governance Is the Hard Part
The June memorandum of understanding bought a ceasefire and a temporary reopening. It did not answer the question that matters to markets: who runs Hormuz after the ceasefire? The 60-day toll-free window was a bridge, not a destination. Its expiration hands the negotiation to the regional actors who were always going to pay the price of whatever comes next.
That is why Gulf states are now at the centre of the process. Articles five and six of the Iran-US memorandum place the Gulf states at the heart of the agreement, and Qatar has been acting as a co-mediator representing the GCC's interests during the talks. The Gulf's incentives are clear: its oil and gas exports cannot reach global markets without Hormuz, and its economies absorbed missile and drone strikes during the war. "They are at the heart of the negotiations," said Mehran Haghirian, director of research and programmes at the Bourse & Bazaar Foundation.
But the agenda is stacked against them. Tehran is demanding tolls on shipping and has called for a regional investment fund for Iran — effectively a reconstruction payment channelled through the states that Washington armed. The toll demand is the crux: it converts Hormuz from a commons guaranteed by the US Navy into a managed corridor with an Iranian gatekeeper. For traders, that is a permanent cost line, not a one-off war premium.
The scale of what is at stake helps explain the urgency. Saudi Arabia's crude oil production fell by 1.9 million barrels a day to 6.238 million barrels a day in August 2026, its lowest level since 1990, as the conflict intensified, according to data the kingdom reported to OPEC. Despite the steep fall in output, Saudi supply to the market reached 7.122 million barrels a day in August, exceeding production — the gap suggests the kingdom drew nearly 900,000 barrels a day from storage to keep cargoes moving. Tanker-tracking data showed Saudi exports down roughly a third. This is the arithmetic behind the Gulf's eagerness for a deal: the region is burning inventory to compensate for a strait that does not fully work.
Iran Is Negotiating From Renewed Leverage, Not Weakness
It would be a mistake to read the talks as a sign that Iran is ready to concede. The opposite is true. Tehran is coming to the table with a freshly asserted control mechanism: the restricted zone announced for the coming days, and the corridor maps it says have already been agreed with Oman.
The military backdrop reinforces that leverage. After a pause in fighting for much of August, tit-for-tat strikes resumed in early September. The Saturday tanker strikes off Kharg and the IRGC's retaliatory targeting of unauthorized vessels show that both sides retain the ability to interrupt flows at will. Kharg Island — through which Iran exported 90% of its crude before the war — has been hit around 550 times in recent months but continues to operate, according to Oil Minister Mohsen Paknejad. Iran remains the third-largest producer in OPEC, and its ability to keep Kharg functioning while disrupting traffic is the leverage behind its toll demand.
The US response has been containment, not control. US Central Command said that as of the Sunday before September 7 it had redirected 92 commercial vessels, disabled three, and boarded two to enforce its blockade. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, touring Gulf nations to reassure allies, said the waters of the strait "do not belong to any nation-state." That is a principle. Iran holds the geography.
There is also a legal dimension to the leverage. Iran's new corridor would run through Iranian and Omani waters, giving Tehran a claim to management rights that a US naval escort cannot easily override without risking a wider confrontation. That is the trap the Gulf states are walking into: they need a deal that restores traffic, but every concession they make to get it entrenches Iran's role as the strait's manager.
What the Market Has Priced — and What It Has Not
The first-order read is straightforward: any threat to Hormuz lifts oil. That trade is crowded and visible. Brent's 22.7% monthly gain and its climb past $109 show the market is paying attention. Oil briefly traded above $100 a barrel during the first two months of the conflict, and the premium has returned as diplomacy stalls.
The second-order question is different: what does a toll-managed Hormuz do to the structure of Gulf crude pricing and shipping costs? A toll is not a spike; it is a floor. If Iran collects a fee per barrel, or per vessel, that cost is baked into every cargo that leaves the Gulf — and it is a cost that Gulf producers, not end consumers, may have to absorb if they want to keep market share. That compresses realized prices for Saudi, Kuwaiti, Emirati and Iraqi crude relative to Brent, even when the headline benchmark is firm.
There is also an insurance dimension. War-risk premiums and rerouting have already pushed tanker rates to record highs. A permanent Iranian-managed corridor does not remove that risk; it formalizes it. Underwriters will price the corridor's rules, the sanctions-list threat, and the probability that a vessel is detained for non-compliance. The result is a structurally higher cost of moving Gulf crude — a tax on the region's competitiveness that survives any ceasefire.
The market has not fully absorbed this. Oil prices are pricing the near-term escalation risk — the strikes, the restricted zone, the stalled diplomacy. They are not yet pricing the durable regime change in chokepoint governance. That gap is the story.
The Counter-Thesis — and the Signal That Would Break It
The strongest case against this reading is that the talks produce a genuine regional settlement that normalizes traffic quickly. If Iran accepts a modest toll administered through a GCC-Iran joint body, and if the US lifts its blockade in exchange, traffic could climb back toward pre-conflict levels. US Energy Secretary Wright's figure — more than 9 million barrels a day already moving, two-thirds or more of pre-conflict flows — suggests the market has adapted better than the headlines imply. Bypass pipelines around the strait, notably in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, provide an escape valve for a meaningful share of Gulf supply.
There is precedent for restraint. During the June reopening, at least 20 oil tankers crossed the strait in a single day, the highest level of traffic since the conflict began, according to trade intelligence firm Kpler. Vice President JD Vance said at the time that the Iranians were "honoring their end of the commitment." A similar bargain — tolls in exchange for guaranteed passage — is within reach.
But that path requires something the parties have not shown: trust. The ceasefire accord reached in June has already unravelled, and little progress has been made in diplomatic efforts to get the peace process back on track. The September tanker strikes and the IRGC's retaliatory targeting show that escalation is a phone call away.
The falsifying signal is specific: if daily commodity transits through Hormuz climb back above 25 ships a day and hold there for two consecutive weeks, and if Brent falls back below $85 a barrel on falling risk premium rather than on weak demand, then the toll-managed-corridor thesis is wrong. That would mean traffic is normalizing faster than the governance dispute can disrupt it, and that the market is treating Hormuz as a commons again. Until then, the burden of proof sits with the optimists.
Outlook: The Right Process at the Wrong Moment
The meeting between Iran and the Gulf states is the right process at the wrong moment. Diplomacy is moving while the military situation is deteriorating, and that mismatch is what keeps the risk premium alive.
Short term, oil stays bid. The restricted zone announcement, the tanker strikes, and the stalled ceasefire all point to continued volatility. Any headline of a ship being detained in the new zone would send Brent toward the $110–115 band.
Medium term, the toll question dominates. If a GCC-Iran joint administration is agreed, the war premium can fade but a structural cost floor remains — bad for Gulf producers' realized prices, neutral-to-bullish for Brent as a benchmark, and bullish for shipping and insurance providers that can navigate the new rules.
Long term, this is a structural shift in chokepoint governance. Hormuz was a US-guaranteed commons; it is becoming a managed corridor with an Iranian gatekeeper and a price tag. That does not revert on its own. Even a full political settlement leaves the toll mechanism in place, because Iran will not surrender the leverage it fought to establish.
Three scenarios frame the path ahead. In the base case, talks produce a toll-and-passage framework within weeks, traffic recovers to 15–20 ships a day, and Brent settles in the high $90s to low $100s with a persistent $3–5 per barrel governance premium. In the upside case for oil, talks collapse, Iran enforces the restricted zone aggressively, and a vessel is detained — Brent retests $110–115. In the downside case, a broader US-Iran accommodation includes lifting the blockade and a UN-backed corridor, traffic exceeds 25 ships a day, and Brent falls below $85.
The Gulf states did not start this war, but they are being asked to pay for its peace. The price of reopening the Strait of Hormuz is no longer measured in barrels — it is measured in who controls the gate.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
