What is the shipping route in the Strait of Hormuz that Iran and Amanda agree on? According to reports, Iran and Oman have reached a bilateral agreement on the passage plan for the Strait of Hormuz. The details of the bilateral agreement have not been announced yet. Let's discuss the plan for the passage of the Strait of Hormuz between Iran and Afghanistan based on previous reports from various parties. The negotiations between Iran and Oman regarding the strait actually originated from Article 5 of the June US Iran Memorandum of Understanding, which required Iran and Oman to discuss the future management and maritime services of the strait. Subsequently, Iran and Afghanistan established a joint working group, which went through technical talks, map exchange, and deputy foreign minister level consultations. With emotion, the memorandum between the United States and Iran regarding June has been invalidated, and Iran and Oman are still insisting, of course, both have their own demands. Iran hopes to consolidate its actual influence on key waterways (both entering and exiting Iranian waters), legitimize potential benefits of "services", and link reopening conditions with US behavior as a bargaining chip. Oman, as a neutral coordinator, seeks to balance sovereignty and regional stability. What Iran and Amanda have achieved this time is not a complete and unconditional opening of the strait, but a phased and regulatory bilateral diversion management mechanism. 1. Core achieved part: Shipping route map (waterway map) 1) Iran and Oman have reached an agreement on the geographical coordinates of the safe passage of commercial vessels after about three months of intensive technical negotiations (based on arrangements related to the US Iran Memorandum of Understanding around June 18). 2) Nature of the plan This is an independent bilateral arrangement aimed at ensuring the safe passage of ships while maintaining the sovereignty of both countries. Not a direct agreement with the United States. 3) Reclassification of navigation channels and management of "segmented diversion" Abandoning old international waterways: Abolishing or replacing the traditional two-way waterways and safety barriers established by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 1968. The negotiations focus on integrating the old/temporary north-south waterways into a new "middle route" or a single two-way channel (or specific combinations of entry/exit), with some or significant sections passing through Iranian territorial waters and some passing through Omani waters. The goal is to balance the sovereignty and interests of both sides, rather than restoring the fully open state before the war. The Iranian side has repeatedly emphasized that the new waterway design will allow merchant ships to pass through certain sections of Iran's territorial waters during their entry and exit, in order to strengthen effective supervision of traffic and exercise of sovereignty. 2. Temporary and Execution Mechanism The new waterway is described as a temporary arrangement that may be applicable for 2-4 months (or longer, depending on subsequent circumstances), during which the existing temporary north-south waterway may be closed. Possible establishment of a joint coordination center to manage maritime traffic, collect ship information, etc. (as previously discussed in negotiations). Ships need to coordinate/contact relevant coastal authorities (especially on the Iranian side), rather than having complete freedom of passage. 3. Charges/service fees In previous negotiations, it was mentioned that Iran had sought a certain percentage of the value of goods as "service fees" for environmental protection, safety, personnel, etc. Oman discussed a lower percentage or voluntary nature; the United States opposed any fees. The latest statement on August 15th did not confirm the specific charging terms, and the early temporary period emphasized free. It is still unclear whether the service fee will be included in the final plan and how it will be distributed (equally between the two countries?). It should be clarified that: The agreement itself does not mean the complete reopening or restoration of normal commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran demands that the United States cease its' illegal actions', military threats, naval blockades, and provide compensation for the past two months' violations before fully restoring security and normal passage. Then the United States explicitly denied Iran's partial description of "control" and emphasized that the temporary route had no Iranian approval/toll. Official public confirmation from Oman is limited, and details may still be under internal coordination. Or is it here on the 11th at https://(x.com)/qinbank/status/2086978623379325105? The last part of the conversation about s=46&t=k6rimWs Ebo2D2TXolYcM-A is about "playing games around the terms in Iran's highest asking price, which ones are acceptable and which ones can be compromised. But the biggest problem is that the time rhythm path has become unclear again". The biggest concern is that on the 13th, here https://(x.com)/qinba frank/status/2087903125399011470? S=46&t=k6rimWs Ebo2D2TXolYcM-A talked about the "long-term game between the US and Iran".