Strait of Hormuz — a case of legitimacy, sovereignty

The central dispute between Iran and the United States has gradually evolved beyond the nuclear issue toward a more complex issue of strategic contest over legitimacy, sovereignty, influence, security and control in the Strait of Hormuz — a passage whose navigational status itself was historically never seriously disputed under international maritime practice.

What was once primarily a disagreement over uranium enrichment and sanctions has increasingly transformed into a confrontation over who ultimately shapes the security architecture of the Persian Gulf and the world’s most sensitive energy corridor.

The Strait of Hormuz has once again become the geopolitical pressure valve of the global economy. Barely 21 nautical miles wide at its narrowest point, this maritime choke point carries nearly one-fifth of global oil and LNG trade and serves as the strategic gateway between the Gulf and the Arabian Sea.

Yet behind the military rhetoric lies a more complicated legal and strategic debate: do Iran and Oman possess legitimate control over the Strait under international law, and if so, why does the United States object so strongly?

The legal reality is stated to be that the Strait of Hormuz lies entirely within the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), coastal states possess sovereignty over their territorial seas extending up to 12 nautical miles from their coastlines. Since the Strait is narrower than 24 nautical miles at critical points, the territorial waters of Iran and Oman overlap and effectively cover the entire passage.

This geographical fact gives both countries a strong legal basis to claim administrative and security jurisdiction over the strait.

Oman, which is a signatory to UNCLOS, accepts the principle of transit passage but has historically maintained reservations regarding unrestricted movement of foreign warships through its waters. Iran, while not having ratified UNCLOS, nevertheless asserts that it retains sovereign rights over its portion of the strait and can regulate passage in the interest of national security.

However, international maritime law also established a balancing principle. In return for allowing coastal states to expand territorial seas from the traditional three nautical miles to twelve nautical miles, UNCLOS created the doctrine of “transit passage” for international straits. This doctrine guarantees uninterrupted navigation for commercial shipping and limits the ability of coastal states to block or suspend passage.

This is precisely where the dispute begins.

The United States argues that the Strait of Hormuz is an international waterway indispensable to global commerce and energy security. Washington therefore insists that freedom of navigation must supersede unilateral restrictions imposed by either Iran or Oman. American naval deployments in the Gulf are based upon this principle. The United States itself has never ratified UNCLOS. Washington nonetheless maintains that freedom of navigation through international straits has become part of customary international law binding on all states.

From Tehran’s perspective, American military patrols close to Iranian waters represent strategic coercion rather than lawful maritime protection. Iran further argues that repeated sanctions, covert operations and military threats justify tighter control over a passage located within its own territorial sphere.

Most countries, however, do not support the idea of Iran or Oman exercising exclusive or restrictive control over Hormuz. The European Union, China, Japan, India and major energy importing states prefer uninterrupted neutral access under internationally accepted maritime norms. Even countries maintaining cordial relations with Tehran remain cautious about endorsing toll systems, selective passage permissions or militarized oversight.

At the same time, many states are equally uncomfortable with unilateral American military dominance in the Gulf. The widening conflict between the United States and Iran has convinced several countries that over-militarization of the strait itself increases risks to commercial shipping rather than reducing them.

This creates a reluctant middle ground in global opinion. Most states accept that Iran and Oman possess territorial sovereignty over the strait, but they reject any attempt to weaponise geography for political leverage.

Simultaneously, they oppose transforming the Strait of Hormuz into a permanently militarized corridor controlled by extra-regional powers.

Iran has well understood the global politics, geography and legality and the need to play around it to strengthen its case. Oman is needed as a partner to make things happen in Iran’s favour. There is no publicly confirmed, legally ratified treaty showing that Iran and Oman have formally agreed to “joint control” of the Strait of Hormuz in the sense of sovereign co-ownership or exclusive administration.

What does exist — based largely on Iranian official statements, unofficial drafts, and media leaks during the 2026 Gulf crisis — is evidence of negotiations for a joint transit-management and security framework.

Tehran repeatedly stated that “pre-war rules” would no longer apply after the US-Israel-Iran confrontation. Iran wanted a new legal-security regime recognizing its enhanced strategic leverage.

Strategically, Iran’s objective appears less about formal sovereignty and more about the following: institutionalizing its leverage, legitimizing security oversight, monetizing transit, and reducing direct Western naval dominance in the Gulf.

Oman’s likely objective, by contrast, is more pragmatic: preventing conflict spillover, keeping shipping open, preserving mediator status and; avoiding direct confrontation with either Iran or the US.

So, the arrangement — if it eventually materializes — would probably resemble a joint maritime management protocol, not a classic territorial control agreement.

The present stalemate can only be resolved through a multi-layered diplomatic framework.

The Strait of Hormuz ultimately represents more than a legal dispute over territorial waters. It symbolizes the unfinished struggle between sovereign rights and global commons, between regional ownership and international dependence. Neither absolute Iranian control nor perpetual American naval primacy offers a sustainable solution. Stability will emerge only when the strait is treated not as a battlefield of competing hegemonies, but as a shared artery of global commerce whose security depends upon cooperation rather than coercion.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026