Two different mechanisms in the pans
Oman's proposal is modelled on the Strait of Malacca arrangement: ships using the waterway pay a "voluntary fee" that funds navigation safety, environmental protection and search and rescue. The provision that matters is the partnership the fee requires rather than the fee itself; the arrangement would stop Iran from exercising sole control over the strait.[1]
Tehran's counter-proposal starts somewhere else. Iran's deputy foreign minister, Kazem Gharibabadi, said the equal-division plan did not meet Iran's security concerns, and that Iran would "manage shipping through its side of the strait" while Oman would manage part but not all of the opposite lane. As Gharibabadi described it, the Omanis are proposing three lines for maritime traffic: one through Iran's territorial waters, an international one, and one through Omani waters.[1]
The missing leg of the mechanism
What makes the Malacca precedent work has less to do with where the lines are drawn than with the existence of a body that collects the fee and spends it. Neither of the two texts in circulation names such a body publicly. The gap admits two readings: either the parties deliberately deferred the administrative question, or that is precisely where they cannot agree. Nothing yet favours the second; sequencing is as ordinary a negotiating practice as deadlock.[1]
It is worth looking at what goes into each pan. What Oman gains is an order in which the strait is not at one state's disposal, and a role for itself within it. What Iran wants is recognition of its control over one lane. Yet in the same remarks Gharibabadi said Tehran would consider "any action" to maintain control, including resuming warfare. When a party that has taken its seat keeps its outside option that visible, the price of the offer has not yet been set.[1]
Too early to call it a balance
Before the conflict began on 28 February, one-fifth of the world's energy supplies passed through the strait, and its closure has disrupted global trade. A disruption that large makes it tempting to count an exchange of proposals as progress in itself. What has changed so far, though, is the channel of contact; neither side has taken on a new commitment. The concrete thing to look for in the next round is plain: does either text name the body that would collect the fee, and a date on which it starts?[1]