Trump Threatens to Bomb US Ally Oman If It 'Gets in the Way' Over Iran Deal

In a startling escalation of rhetoric, President Donald Trump has reportedly threatened to bomb Oman—a longstanding US ally—if the Gulf nation interferes with American negotiations with Iran. The threat underscores the high-stakes tensions surrounding the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a waterway through which roughly one-fifth of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas typically passes.

The Strait of Hormuz has been largely closed for nearly six months amid the ongoing US-Iran war, creating significant disruptions to global energy markets and international shipping. Both Washington and Muscat have been engaged in separate diplomatic efforts with Tehran to restore navigation through this critical chokepoint, but the president's latest comments suggest a willingness to use military force against even close partners in the pursuit of an agreement.

A Threat That Shakes Diplomatic Norms

President Trump was quoted as saying: "If Oman gets in the way, we'll bomb the shit out of them." The president did not clarify what specific actions would constitute "getting in the way" of his administration's ambitions for a deal, leaving allies and adversaries alike guessing about the boundaries of US tolerance.

Oman, which borders the southern side of the Strait of Hormuz, has consistently positioned itself as a neutral country in the conflict. Despite its declared neutrality, the Sultanate has suffered a number of strikes from Iran and has emerged as a key mediator in negotiations with Tehran to reopen the waterway. The threat against Oman marks a significant departure from typical US diplomatic protocol, especially toward a nation that has historically served as a bridge between Washington and Tehran.

Iran Claims Progress on Separate Deal

The timing of Trump's threat added another layer of complexity to an already volatile situation. Just hours before the president's comments, Iranian officials announced that they were close to finalising an agreement with Oman regarding the transit route through the Strait.

Iran's foreign ministry spokesman confirmed that "an understanding has been reached regarding the map of the transit route," with both sides expected to finalise the details before issuing a joint statement. Oman had previously described these talks as positive, suggesting that Muscat's mediation efforts were yielding tangible results.

However, the future of direct US-Iran talks remains uncertain. A 60-day Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the two countries—designed to bring about a ceasefire and at least partially reopen the Strait—is expiring. When asked whether he would seek an extension to the MoU, Trump replied with a blunt: "No."

The Collapse of the Memorandum of Understanding

The MoU, signed on 18 June, was intended to de-escalate hostilities and restore some degree of normalcy to the Strait of Hormuz. But the agreement fell apart shortly after both sides resumed strikes, and on 8 July, Trump declared the ceasefire was "over".

Iranian officials have previously indicated that a full reopening of the Strait is contingent upon Tehran receiving compensation from the US for what it describes as violations of the MoU. Reports indicate that Tehran was seeking fees of between 5% and 7% of the price of cargoes from vessels travelling through the waterway.

Backchannel Claims and Denials

During the same interview, Trump also claimed that the United States had established a direct backchannel with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a major military, economic, and political force in Iran. The IRGC swiftly denied the assertion, with a spokesman stating: "There are no talks taking place between IRGC officials and the Americans, and this lie by Trump is merely fantasies caused by the delusions and nightmares he has suffered as a result of defeat and desperation in the war."

The claim, whether true or not, highlights the complex and often opaque nature of US-Iran communications during the conflict. Despite the backchannel assertion, Trump made it clear that he is in no rush to bring the war to a close. "They're good poker players, but they're dying," he stated. "I have no time schedule. I'm not in a hurry."

Strategic Implications for the Gulf Region

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's most strategically significant waterways. Its closure has had profound implications for global energy security, with oil and liquefied natural gas shipments severely disrupted. The US and Israel attacked Iran in February, prompting Tehran to largely block the strait in response.

Key points to consider regarding the current crisis:

• Global Energy Dependence: Approximately one-fifth of the world's oil passes through the Strait, making its reopening a priority for major economies.
• Oman's Delicate Position: As a neutral nation bordering the strait, Oman has attempted to mediate while also suffering attacks from Iran.
• US Strategy: Washington has pursued its own separate negotiations with Tehran, seemingly independent of Omani mediation efforts.
• Iran's Demands: Tehran is seeking financial compensation and other concessions before agreeing to fully reopen the waterway.

The president's threat against Oman raises serious questions about the future of US-Gulf alliances. Oman has long been viewed as a reliable partner and a critical diplomatic bridge in the region. Threatening military action against such an ally could undermine trust and complicate future cooperation on a range of security issues.

Final Thoughts

President Trump's threat to bomb Oman represents a remarkable departure from conventional US foreign policy, particularly toward a nation that has consistently acted as a mediator in one of the world's most volatile regions. While the administration's frustration with the slow pace of negotiations is understandable, the use of such aggressive rhetoric against a partner country risks alienating allies and complicating diplomatic efforts.

The coming days will be critical in determining whether the Omani-Iranian agreement can be finalised and whether the US will pursue an extension of the expiring MoU or chart a more confrontational course. What remains clear is that the Strait of Hormuz—and the broader US-Iran conflict—will continue to dominate global attention as the world watches to see whether diplomacy or military action prevails.

The situation underscores the fragile nature of international alliances in times of war and the unpredictable consequences of inflammatory rhetoric. As Oman continues its mediation efforts, the international community will be watching closely to see whether the US follows through on its threats or seeks a more measured diplomatic path forward.