Credits: U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Mackenzie Binion / DVIDS.
In the Strait of Hormuz, the USS Makin Island transits a waterway that has become central to the crisis with Iran. The image frames the military and energy stakes behind Donald Trump’s remark about Oman. Credits: U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Mackenzie Binion / DVIDS.
Donald Trump dismissed, on Wednesday, May 27, 2026, the idea of a joint role for Iran and Oman. The discussion concerned management of the Strait of Hormuz. But the following sentence explicitly targeted the U.S. allied sultanate. It turned a response about a strategic maritime passage into a diplomatic signal hard to interpret.
A Presidential Remark That Became An Official Signal
The sequence took place at the White House, during an open Cabinet meeting with reporters. Donald Trump was asked about a scenario in which Iran and Oman would control or manage the Strait of Hormuz. He first responded that the passage would remain open and that no country would control it alone.
What followed is the focus of the controversy. According to the video posted by the White House and transcripts reported by Reuters, Al Jazeera and The Guardian, Donald Trump named Oman. He then mentioned a military threat if the country did not behave like other actors in the matter. The State Department’s X account shared a clip of the sequence without correcting the reference to Oman.
That institutional relay is central. An offhand formula can be attributed to the dynamics of a press event. This choice sustained the ambiguity. No clarification from the White House or the State Department establishes whether Donald Trump was actually referring to Oman. Nor is there proof he intended to talk about Iran or to maintain ambiguity.
Why Oman Makes The Phrase So Sensitive
Oman is not an adversary of the United States. The sultanate has long maintained military and economic ties with Washington. It has often played a discreet mediating role between the United States and Iran. It is also a country bordering the Strait of Hormuz, via its Musandam peninsula. That geography places it at the heart of the crisis, without automatically making it a belligerent.
The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most sensitive maritime passages. Before the current war between the United States, Israel and Iran, it accounted for a major share of global hydrocarbon maritime traffic. Since Tehran’s effective closure of the passage, the negotiations have several objectives. They concern freedom of navigation, sanctions, the U.S. military presence and Iran’s nuclear program.
According to Reuters, echoed by Internazionale, Donald Trump’s statement responded to a report from Iranian state television. It mentioned a draft, unofficial agreement. It would foresee a gradual return of commercial traffic to the strait, with joint management by Iran and Oman. The White House characterized that version as complete fabrication.
Between Maritime Control And Right Of Passage
The nuance is important. Saying the Strait of Hormuz must remain open is not the same as resolving the question of its practical control. The passage is governed by international law, which protects the transit of foreign vessels. It also traverses Iranian and Omani territorial waters. It is in this zone of friction that threats, sanctions and negotiations take place.
On May 28, the Associated Press reported that the U.S. administration had announced new sanctions. They target an Iranian authority responsible for regulating maritime traffic in the strait. These measures aim at Iran’s effort to approve passages and impose fees on ships. Washington thus seeks to maintain economic and military pressure on Tehran.
This new round of sanctions sheds light on Donald Trump’s remark. These measures target precisely the mechanism Washington fears: seeing Tehran turn the reopening of the strait into a sustained lever, through authorizations, fees or restrictions. The American difficulty is therefore to maintain pressure on Iran without weakening Oman, a regional mediator Washington still needs.
An Apparent Confusion, But Not A Certainty
Several media outlets noted that Donald Trump seemed to be referring to Iran while naming Oman. That hypothesis is plausible, because Iran is the actor Washington accuses of blocking the strait and trying to monetize its reopening. However, it cannot be written as an established fact. The only verifiable fact is that the U.S. president pronounced the name Oman, and that his administration broadcast the clip.
French-language reprises from AFP and Belga also highlighted another passage from the same meeting. Donald Trump reportedly mentioned Venezuela with a military description more fitting Iran. Again, the element must be attributed with caution until the full official transcript of the meeting is published. It reinforces the impression of confusion but is not enough to determine the presidential intent.
The clearest reaction came from Tehran. The Guardian reported on Thursday, May 28 a statement by Esmail Baghaei. The spokesperson for Iran’s foreign ministry denounced threats judged dangerous and intimidating. That response serves Iran’s diplomatic interests. It also shows that the American formula is already being used in the communication battle around Hormuz.
A Slip Of The Tongue In A Fragile Negotiation
The risk for Washington lies less in an operational announcement than in the signaling effect. Verbally threatening an ally in a discussion about the Strait of Hormuz can muddy the message sent to Gulf partners. It also complicates the reading for Iranian negotiators and energy markets. In a maritime crisis, words do not move ships by themselves, but they weigh on perceptions of intent.
Donald Trump sought to draw a red line: neither Iran nor Oman should, in his view, control the strait. The wording produced the opposite of a clear message. It placed Oman, ally and mediator, in the frame of a military threat, and was then amplified by the U.S. diplomatic apparatus.
For now, no public evidence proves that Oman claimed joint control of the passage with Iran. No evidence proves either that Donald Trump’s remark announced a military decision. Between those two limits, the incident mainly reveals the fragility of a negotiation. The Strait of Hormuz, the war with Iran and the American presidential speech collide there in real time.