Trump threatens to bomb Oman if it ‘gets in the way’ over Iran issue
Developed over time first seen 2 months ago
US President Donald Trump has threatened to bomb Oman, a key American ally, if it "gets in the way" of Washington's own negotiations with Iran, according to a Fox News interview. The threat comes as both the US and Oman pursue separate talks with Tehran aimed at reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a critical shipping route that has been largely closed for nearly six months during the US-Iran conflict, making the remark a notable strain on relations with a country that has positioned itself as a neutral mediator.
Oman, which borders the strait's southern side and has itself been struck by Iran during the conflict, says an understanding has been reached with Tehran on a transit route map, with a joint statement expected once details are finalised. Roughly a fifth of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas normally passes through the strait, and Iran has said full reopening depends on receiving compensation, reportedly seeking fees of 5-7% of cargo values. Trump also claimed the US has a direct backchannel with Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, which the IRGC denied, and said he was in no hurry to end hostilities as a 60-day US-Iran memorandum of understanding, signed on 18 June, expires without renewal.
- Trump threatens to bomb Oman over Iran negotiations, Fox News reports
- Iran and Oman near deal to reopen Strait of Hormuz shipping route
- US-Iran memorandum of understanding expiring; Trump says no extension sought
New here? Start with this
Trump has publicly threatened to bomb Oman if it interferes with US efforts to negotiate with Iran. Oman is a Gulf state that has long acted as a neutral go-between for Washington and Tehran, and it sits along the southern edge of the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway used to ship roughly a fifth of the world's oil and gas.
The strait has been mostly shut for nearly six months amid ongoing tension between the US and Iran, and both Washington and Oman have been holding separate talks with Tehran to get it reopened. Iran has said it wants compensation before allowing shipping to resume freely, while a temporary US-Iran agreement reached in June is due to lapse without being renewed.
The remark about Oman is notable because Oman has been a close US partner and has itself come under attack from Iran during the conflict, making it an unusual target for such a threat. Trump also claimed the US is in direct contact with Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, a claim the Guard has denied, adding further uncertainty to how the situation might develop.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the tough line argue that Washington's leverage in high-stakes negotiations with a hostile regime depends on a single, unambiguous channel, and that parallel or competing tracks – even from a well-intentioned mediator – risk sending Tehran mixed signals that could be exploited. On this view, blunt rhetoric aimed at allies as well as adversaries is a deliberate negotiating tactic, consistent with a broader approach that prizes unpredictability and maximum pressure as tools to extract better terms on issues as consequential as the reopening of a strait carrying a fifth of global oil and gas flows.
The case against
Critics contend that publicly threatening to bomb a longstanding partner – one that has itself suffered Iranian strikes and has quietly built trust as a neutral go-between – is a needless and counterproductive escalation that conflates ally with adversary. They argue that such rhetoric undermines the very diplomatic architecture needed to resolve the crisis, damages America's credibility with other regional partners who might otherwise offer good offices, and reflects a governing style that substitutes coercive threats for the patient coalition-building that durable de-escalation typically requires.