US - Iran Peace agreement Part 3

[TopPocketFind]

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/conflict-in-the-middle-east/5535141-us-iran-peace-agreement-part-2https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/conflict-in-the-middle-east/5535141-us-iran-peace-agreement-part-2

From the Independent at 3:10

Iranian officials have said they are negotiating specifically with Oman over Hormuz. The extent of US involvement in these talks is unclear, but experts tell The Independent Trump is likely to seize the credit for any impending deal either way. “Oman will not act alone and independently. Whilst they hold on the pen on this issue, they will be co-ordinating with other Gulf partners and the US,” said Dr Neil Quilliam, professor on the Middle East and North Africa programme at Chatham House.
The US, he says, may end up agreeing a settlement under which Iran is paid “service” fees which are disguised as environmental payments.
While Trump would likely claim credit for a deal and sell it as a success for Washington, it would ultimately be an embarrassment. The White House has repeatedly rejected Tehran’s demand that ships pay a toll to cross through the Strait.”
“There are growing signs that Washington will claim responsibility for a deal to open the Strait, after senior members of the Trump administration suggested it was days away.
"There's been progress made in those talks [between Iran and Oman], but not finality yet. We're hoping that will happen very shortly," US secretary of state Rubio told reporters on Tuesday.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also struck an optimistic tone, claiming a deal on reopening the Strait could be reached on Wednesday or Thursday.
“There is no trust between Iran and the US at present. Given that Iran and Oman are the two parties to managing Hormuz, it makes perfect sense for them to work through the issues,” says Dr Quilliam. “But Oman needs the backing of its regional partners and the US.””
“Last week, Oman submitted a proposal to Iran envisaging regional management of the Strait and only voluntary fees for transit, rather than Tehran's vision of maintaining control of the waterway and charging for its use.
The proposal was for a joint regional mechanism to manage the strait with voluntary fees to help fund the cost of managing navigation, environmental protection, search and rescue and other services.
But a look at Tehran’s latest demands casts some doubt over the US optimism of an imminent - and lasting - deal. ”
“During talks with Oman, Tehran has put forward a proposal that would give Iran full control over all inbound shipping, a senior Iranian official told Reuters.
Outbound shipping would follow a route between Iran and Oman, with exit clearance granted through Oman after notifying Iran.
Tehran is “unlikely to change its position” from this, the source told the news agency.
But experts suggest this another sign that Iran wants to create leverage in peace talks - and such a demand would be unacceptable to Washington.
“The US will not accept any post-war arrangement that would actually give Tehran more control over shipping in the region,” says professor Basil Germond, a professor of international security at Lancaster University and an expert in maritime affairs.”
“Iran’s negotiations with Oman are the regime’s latest attempt to build relationships with regional countries and drive a wedge between them and the US, according to Maziyar Ghiabi, the director for the Centre of Persian And Iranian Studies at the University of Exeter.
“By building a long-term friendship and collaboration with Oman, Iran and its diplomatic team is trying to show that security and economic order will be beneficial to countries that engage with them at the expense of Washington,” he said. ”
“Washington could, experts believe, agree to a deal negotiated between Iran and Oman.
A deal which could be acceptable to the US would be one which results in paid “service” fees being paid to Iran, under the guise of “environmental fees”, Dr Quilliam says.
This would ultimately be a win for Iran, who for months have been demanding a toll for passage through the Strait of Hormuz. For the US, it could only be seen as a concession. ”
“Trump’s central concern is getting Hormuz open again, Dr Quilliam says. “Even with ‘environmental service fees’ he will claim it is a victory, and add that he has destroyed Iran’s nuclear programme, its navy and its airforce and so on.
“He just needs the Gulf Arab states to sign up and live with the service fees. And given the alternative is a continuous war of attrition, this looks increasingly likely now,” he adds.
Prof Ghiabi says Trump, who has “attempted to play the role of kingmaker in diplomacy”, may see the ongoing negotiations as a way out from the quagmire in Iran.
“The US and much of the world need a steady flow of oil resources from that region, and we have reached the point where whatever arrangement guarantees that may be somehow reluctantly welcomed.””

Excerpt From
“Inside Iran’s ‘deal on the side’ with Oman to open new route in Strait of Hormuz”
Alex Croft
The Independent
https://apple.news/Afdbbb7IRQLybLMv8P6wAig
This material may be protected by copyright.

A 2021 study of Grammarly, cited inin a blog post by Brigham Young University’s editing blog “Editing Research,” found that 66 percent of the errors the software detected were accurate. Grammarly did not detect 7 percent of the errors in the content. The authors of the study (linked below) wrote, “The usage of Grammarly as a stand-alone product may not be optimal.”

I'm just leaving this here and will not be responding further. People can only be a singular noun because a plural exists.

You're just wrong, people is plural.

Beatles song: All the lonely people, where do they all come from?

Cambridge dictionary: people
noun [ plural ]

men, women, and children:
Many people never do any exercise.
We've invited 30 people to our party.

Thesaurus Quick summary
Both persons and people can be used as plural forms of person. Persons is often used in formal, legal contexts to emphasize individuals as opposed to a group. People is the plural of person that’s most commonly used in everyday communication to simply refer to multiple humans. But people can also be used as a singular noun to refer to a population or particular community. The plural of this sense of people is peoples, and it’s often used in terms like Indigenous Peoples (in which it’s often capitalized since it refers to specific communities).

https://www.thesaurus.com/articles/persons-vs-people-vs-peoples

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/people

The Guardian:

• Iran and Oman have agreed a route for ships transiting the strait of Hormuz and are finalising the draft deal for jointly managing the waterway, Tehran’s foreign ministry said Wednesday.

• But, spokesperson Esmaeil Baghei stressed that any reopening of the strait would depend on the United States fulfilling what Tehran sees as its commitment to end its own naval blockade of Iran’s ports. A joint statement will be issued from Iran and Oman “if certain parties do not obstruct this process” , Baghei said, apparently referring to the US. Two regional officials briefed on the negotiations told the AP that the potential deal was a temporary solution to the dispute over the strait, and will pave the way for the US and Iran to resume negotiations on Tehran’s nuclear program.

www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/aug/05/us-iran-israel-oman-strait-of-hormuz-latest-news-updates

Iran’s president Masoud Pezeshkian said in an interview aired by state TV on Wednesday that interaction with the country’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei is currently “very difficult”.

(this makes sense to me given that I think he's probably dead or a vegetable).

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/aug/05/us-iran-israel-oman-strait-of-hormuz-latest-news-updates#top-of-blog

Here's a ME perspective on talks between Oman and Iran which have been ongoing since June, on the opening of the SoH.

Hormuz deal takes shape — but it’s not Trump’s deal
Joint Iran-Oman being finalised, but deal is no guarantee for security Hormuz, says Tehran

Tehran is not simply negotiating: “Open the strait.”
Iran is negotiating: “Open the strait under a system that recognises our security role.”
That distinction is at the heart of the talks.

The real test will not be another optimistic statement from Washington or Tehran.
It will be whether:
Commercial tankers begin transiting Hormuz regularly;
Iran relinquishes unilateral authority to stop or inspect ships;
No mandatory Iranian transit fees are imposed;
War-risk insurance costs begin falling;
Gulf oil and LNG exports normalise; and
The arrangement is incorporated into a broader U.S.-Iran ceasefire or peace framework.
A genuine reopening should be measured by actual shipping flows, insurance rates and the removal of blockades rather than diplomatic declarations alone.

A genuine reopening should be measured by actual shipping flows, insurance rates and the removal of blockades rather than diplomatic declarations alone.
Trump wants Hormuz reopened without Iran gaining a veto over global shipping.
Iran wants the strait reopened in a way that preserves — and potentially legitimises — its role as the gatekeeper of traffic into the Gulf.

Oman is trying to construct a compromise between those incompatible positions.

Hard questions unanswered
That is why an agreement may be getting “closer” while the hardest question remains unanswered.
Hormuz can reopen without Trump getting everything he wants.
And if Iran emerges with recognised authority over even part of the traffic through the maritime chokepoint, Tehran could end the war with something it did not have before: a negotiated seat at the table controlling one of the world's most strategically important waterways.
Also In This Package

https://gulfnews.com/world/mena/hormuz-deal-takes-shape-but-its-not-trumps-deal-1.500632054

I don’t think the term “vegetable” is deemed as acceptable any more Twigs. Just so you know…..

In a vegetative state, if you prefer.

Not sounding too great for the US navy stationed in the Middle East.

“Morale is plummeting on an American aircraft carrier that's running short of food and other supplies as its exhausted crew wages President Donald Trump's war against Iran, worried family members say.
Sailors and Marines serving on the USS Abraham Lincoln have told relatives about being served a half-cup of rice and two tortillas for a meal, and said the ship's store often lacks soap, deodorant and toothpaste, MS NOW reported Wednesday.
Crew members are also worn out by working long, grueling shifts, with some rarely getting a day off, and described broken toilets, moldy showers without hot water and no laundry service for weeks at a time, relatives said.
“The morale is not good,” said Bonnie York, whose stepson is aboard the Lincoln. “Apparently, the ship’s doctor or therapist said they need to hit port soon or people are going to start, you know, losing their minds.””

Excerpt From
“Sailors on USS Lincoln outside Iran are exhausted and suffering from poor morale on ship, families warn”
Bruce Golding
The Independent
https://apple.news/AKR8COliPQveQndJ22ENvow
This material may be protected by copyright.

Fun fact, the term “going round the bend” has been associated with sailors being posted on Telegraph Island, in the SoH.

From the Telegraph just now

Recent leaks out of Muscat, Tehran and Washington all point in one direction: an agreement between Iran and Oman to reopen the Strait of Hormuz is all but sealed.
“So for many people, the reported deal is good news. The seafarers held hostage on their ships in the Persian Gulf for the past five months may soon be able to go home. Consumers around the world will dodge another energy and inflation crisis. Above all, it raises the chances of lasting peace.
The fate of the Strait is (or was) the key point of contention between Tehran and Washington over how to implement their June memorandum of understanding (MOU) on ending the war. Resolving that quarrel (America is not technically a party to the deal, but is expected to acquiesce to make it work), may unlock a path to agreement on other points in that document.
Fingers crossed the war could be over – mostly, at least – well before US midterm elections in November. Such a peace is not, however, the one the US had in mind.”
“It means that Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu’s war to topple or defang the Islamic Republic is ending in a demonstrable expansion of Iranian regional influence. They lost. Iran won.
The Hormuz deal tells us why. Leaked reports suggest the agreement grants Iran control of marine traffic entering the Persian Gulf, and also gives it some oversight of the outbound route which will be under the purview of Oman. The two countries will also charge a fee (yet to be set) to cover environmental, security and staffing costs.
As Kazem Gharibabadi, Iranian deputy foreign minister, told state media, it cements Iran’s “effective sovereignty” over the Strait. This was always a possible outcome of the June MOU, which was left deliberately vague on several points.”
“Point Five, for example, simply called for Iran and Oman to “conduct dialogue… to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz”. Iran interpreted that to mean it had the right to control the Strait and charge fees. The United States insisted that it meant a return to the pre-war status quo of free navigation.
Everyone knew that the contradiction would have to be resolved, and that there was a danger that Iran’s interpretation would win out. But there’s no point in blaming the diplomats who drafted the MOU for this. Peace agreements, after all, only reflect the verdict of the battlefield.
The return to all-out fighting about three weeks ago, with the US bombing targets specifically related to Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps control of the Strait and Gulf Coast, can be seen as an attempt to revise that verdict. It failed.”
“Trump’s threat last weekend to launch a fortnight-long Second World War-scale destructive blitz was his last throw of the dice. He dropped that plan, we now know, because of an intervention by America’s Gulf allies, including Saudi Arabia. It has now been reported that came after Iran warned its neighbours that they would be targeted in the event of a US attack.
So Iran not only has control of the Strait in a way it did not before the war; its military leverage – the ability to use the threat of force to influence the behaviour of its neighbours – is stronger than before.”
“Much is still uncertain. The US and Oman have not yet publicly commented on the deal, which is of course contingent on American acquiescence. Meanwhile, Iran says it will only actually put the deal into effect if America lifts its blockade of Iranian ports. It is possible that Trump could decide to try another round of strikes to deliver a different outcome.”
“On Tuesday, the president warned that Iran would be “hit very hard” if the strait did not open “very soon”. His remarks came after senior officials in Washington suggested that talks had progressed to allow passage through the waterway to resume later this week, though Iran has repeatedly restated that it is not negotiating with the White House and has no plans to do so.”
“And there are many other bones of contention in the MOU – among them the fate of Iran’s nuclear programme, lifting of American sanctions and the unfreezing of Iranian assets – that could yet scupper the nascent peace process. Yet the first test has gone Iran’s way, and there is every reason to believe the other points will too.
So much for the verdict of the battlefield. What about the verdict of history? There’s a possible universe where this conflict could prove a turning point in the decline of US global power. One of those blunders, like Britain’s misadventure at Suez, that come to mark the end of an empire.”
“Just imagine, for example, if America finds itself unable to fight a war of necessity because of the missile stocks it used in this failed war of choice.
On the other hand, America remains the world’s dominant superpower. It has suffered no defeat in battle, and very few casualties. Great powers can often take such setbacks in their stride.
The Islamic Republic, on the other hand, has suffered losses in the thousands, and economic and military destruction that could take decades to repair. Iran’s victory may yet prove Pyrrhic.
It is, however, a victory. There is no getting around the fact Iran won this war. America lost.”

Excerpt From
“This is proof Iran won the war”
Roland Oliphant
The Telegraph
https://apple.news/A5AVWf3NqSPC_I7fAKZuqdg
This material may be protected by copyright.

Quote "The seafarers held hostage on their ships in the Persian Gulf for the past five months may soon be able to go home. "

Emotive choice of words there from the Telegraph.

The UN used different language back in March.

‘No precedent’ for seafarers caught in war zone in post-WW2 era | UN News

As does the UN at the end of July.

Stranded Hormuz Seafarers abandoned for months at sea | OHCHR

"Stranded" is the word the UN is using. A bit different from " held hostage".

The plight of the seafarers is very real of course. The UN also says "abandoned" in the 2nd article above.

"Our Office has also obtained information that some seafarers have been abandoned at sea by shipowners who have left them without support, repatriation and even their owed wages.
We are aware of at least nine ships, with 93 crew members, abandoned by their owners at Iranian ports in the Strait of Hormuz since the start of the war.
The seafarers have been left on their ships to fend for themselves without food, water, fuel, medical care, electricity or means to communicate with their families."

Just an observation, that's all.

Well it’s clearly not a win for the US. Now it’s just a case of what will Donny do next, and with what?

Watching channel 4 news now. Fake news, fake news and treason. Blimey.

And the absolute belief that the people of Iran, who were encouraged to rise up against their government, were stabbed in the back by the US.

This was from Reuters:

“Though Trump has regularly claimed victory for having killed many of Iran’s leaders and degraded its military capabilities, most analysts agree that the president has been stymied on many of his goals for the war.
He said on Saturday he canceled plans for new large-scale attacks after Middle Eastern partners asked him to give diplomacy another chance, but at the same time he threatened to hit hard if the effort failed.
Some analysts suggested Trump’s climbdown may have also been driven by concerns about depletion of U.S. missile stockpiles. Trump, however, has denied the U.S. is running low on munitions.
Even so, Trump issued a new contradictory message to Iran on Wednesday. "I'd rather make a deal because I don't want to kill people,” he told a rally in Las Vegas. “But at some point we're gonna.””
“Iran has warned Washington’s Gulf allies that any new U.S. strikes would trigger retaliation against their energy infrastructure, five sources with knowledge of the discussions said.
Jonathan Panikoff, former deputy U.S. intelligence officer for the Middle East, said China, Russia and North Korea are watching closely.
“They are learning what U.S. limitations are going to be for years to come,” he said.
Even some Iran hawks who have mostly backed Trump’s war are advising caution.
“The Islamic Republic is trying to force President Trump into a lose-lose proposition before November," Behnam Ben Taleblu of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a hardline anti-Iran think tank in Washington, wrote on X.
The Trump administration should avoid "rushing into anything” and recognize "where the U.S. does and doesn’t have leverage," he said.”

Excerpt From
“Trump's Iran dilemma: He's stuck in war with no exit in sight”
Matt Spetalnick
Reuters
https://apple.news/AaiS7gkznT7WwCHABbbF5sA
This material may be protected by copyright.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan will sign a joint defence agreement in Saudi Arabia today, two regional sources with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters.

The three countries have been the subject of months of speculation about a possible strategic alliance.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan had already announced a joint defence pact in 2025, a move that drew attention because Pakistan is the Muslim world’s only nuclear-equipped state.

The Trump administration should avoid "rushing into anything” and recognize "where the U.S. does and doesn’t have leverage

From a hard line anti-Iran think tank. But it's a realist's view of the progress of the war and line of trajectory. Arms enthusiasts who can count have already worked out approximate numbers for remaining US missile stockpiles.

A UK prospective of the Iran war as Miliband and Rubio meet. My question would be what is the definition of 'defensive' action regarding the US use of our Bases. I suspect the UK might differ from the US on this, seeing that the US has called their attacks pre-emptive defence retaliation, or some such nonsense.

The general secretaries of 10 UK trade unions, representing more than 2.3 million workers, said in their letter to Burnham that he should do more to oppose “the US and Israel’s devastating, illegal war on Iran”, which was “deepening the cost of living crisis faced by our members and the British public”.
“Since the war started, the average British household has seen its annual energy bill rise by £221, while monthly food bills are forecast to rise by £32.80. Without an end to the war, there will be no end to this cost of living crisis,” they wrote.
The general secretaries said they were encouraged by the new government’s focus on the cost of living and the measures it was taking “to make life more affordable”.
But they said they were “deeply concerned” that it had “authorised US airstrikes to be conducted from bases on British territories as part of the escalating war against Iran”.
(The Guardian)