[Today’s Iran war post launched largely complete. However, I will update it by 8:00 PM EDT if anything of moment happens]
There are few big new stories about the Iran war today save the widespread Western press misreporting of the status of discussions with Iran. Since this is a comparatively slow day, we’ll include some issues that would normally be second-tier, such as the effectiveness of Iran’s hypersonic Fatah missile, a warning by Scott Ritter that the US is about to change its docrtine to allow early and liberal use of tactical nuclear weapons, aspat between Trump and Hegseth over weapons stocks, signs of a power struggle resulting from what I read as the largely successful marginalization of Iran’s President Pezeshkian, and the very poor state of US rations in the Iran theater.
First on the state of the Iran-Oman agreement. The high level version is that Iran has been signaling that it is pretty much complete and an official statement will come soon. However, the agreement also needs to be approved by Iran’s Supreme National Security Council before coming effective.
However, even Aljazeera has taken up the false notion, promoted by the Trump team, that the Iran-Oman negotiations are to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. That is abjectly false, as Iran official media has kept saying and has been ignored. However, as we will show, CNN does get the big picture right, but CNN is not a first stop for investors.
Iran recognizes the necessity of coming to an understanding about how to manage the Strait of Hormuz on an ongoing basis. Even though Iran could enforce its will and deny transit entirely on the Oman side, that would violate Oman’s territorial sovereignity and amount to an act of war. However, settling arrangements and procedures is only a necessary preliminary, the same way high school students must take certain national tests like the SAT and the ACT if they hope to go to college. But taking the SAT does not mean you have been admitted to MIT.
At the same time, Trump is bizarrely still maintaining that Iran is negotiating with the US and Iran denials are lies. So what happens when there is no deal? Trump insisted there had to be one by Wednesday or he would unleash his long-threatened devastating attacks. We’re past that and no ginormous attack happened. So what does Trump do Thursday? Blather that the talks are going great but he’s frustrated at how long they are taking [insert usual tropes about no one really in charge because he killed everyone who mattered] and will blow them to smithereens if they don’t capitulate double plus quick?
And regardless of how long Trump tries to string things along, damage to the economy keeps compounding. Japan’s yen and bond markets are canaries in the coal mine, registering their dependence on energy and food imports. As we’ll discuss, Ansar Allah is escalating and the Saudis show no inclination to come to terms with them. So the squeeze is getting worse as stockpiles continue to fall.
More detail on the state of play and the content of the Iran-Oman agreement. We hoisted this tweet into comments last night; readers said it was consistent with accounts at Reuters and Al Mayadeen. From Babak Vahdad:
[Deputy Foreign Minister] Gharibabadi makes clear that the emerging Iran-Oman agreement is not the implementation of Paragraph 5 of the Islamabad MoU, but a separate arrangement.
– According to him, the current northern route near Larak Island and the southern corridor in Omani territorial waters will be closed and replaced by a new temporary shipping route, with a significant (not all to be noted) portion of both inbound and outbound commercial traffic transiting through Iranian territorial waters.
– He also says regional states have accepted that Tehran and Muscat should jointly define the Strait’s future arrangements. The temporary route could remain in place for 2-4 months, rather than the one month envisaged under the Islamabad MoU.
– Finally, he stresses that any move to Phase 2-including the reopening of Hormuz under normal conditions and the issue of transit fees- will require a new political decision and depends on whether Washington genuinely returns to its commitments.
My reading: this looks more than a technical update. Tehran is signalling that it wants to turn the post-war arrangements into a new operational reality rather than simply restore the pre-war status quo.
If implemented, the proposed routing would substantially expand Iran’s practical role in managing commercial navigation through the Strait, while preserving leverage over the transition to any longer-term settlement.
PressTV makes clear yet again that this agreement does not amount to opening the Strait of Horumuz. More detail from Gharibabadi in Iran says US must resolve promise breaches for Strait of Hormuz reopening:
Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi says reopening of the Strait of Hormuz requires the United States to meet certain conditions, saying Washington’s illegal actions remain the main source of security concerns surrounding the strategic waterway.
Gharibabadi said in an interview on Wednesday that Washington had violated its commitments under the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), restored an illegal naval blockade on Iranian ports, resumed hostilities, and failed to help establish stability in Lebanon.
“These are among the requirements, and we have to see what developments will take place in these areas,” he said.
Gharibabadi also said the United States had recently imposed new sanctions on Iran and reinstated restrictions that had been temporarily lifted, particularly in the oil sector, while negotiations over the release of Iran’s frozen assets had been halted.
He also reiterated that Iran would not tolerate any foreign interference in the Strait of Hormuz, saying any understanding on the strategic waterway should be reached exclusively between Iran and Oman.
A quick detour on the sanctions relief issue. The US lifted a few nothingburger sanctions yesterday. There was widespread misreporting on Twitter that this was global as opposed to performative.
Just to be ABUNDANTLY clear after a slew of misreporting on X… the United States DID NOT remove sanctions “on Iran”, nor their oil.
They lifted sanctions on:Fly Baghdad AirlinesIraq ExpressFly BaghdadYi-BafYi-Ban
These are all IRAQI based entities sanctioned for their…
— Brett Erickson (@BrettErickson28) August 5, 2026
Moreover, as Brett Erickson has repeatedly and loudly warned, the fact that the US briefly gave a short-term waiver of oil sanctions and then reversed them clearly demonstrated to Iran that this was not a reliable way to achieve relief, that the US (or other parties) could quickly and easily cancel them. That means Iran will (charitably assuming real talks someday) push for an unwind of the underlying sanctions and not just what amounts to a pause.
Back to some examples of sorry state of reporting on the Iran-Oman negotiation. From the top of Aljazeera’s live feed:
US President Donald Trump says the Pentagon has “massive amounts of munitions” and promises to hunt down “leakers” behind reports of weapons shortages.
Iran says a deal with Oman to reopen the Strait of Hormuz is “on the verge of being finalised“, after both countries agreed on the coordinates of routes through the critical waterway.
We will turn to the latest Trump temper tantrum in due course.
In fairness, Bloomberg, after overstating what the agreement was about yesterday, has recalibrated after apparently bothering to look at what Iran officials are saying. Nevertheless, the headline, Iran Says Agreement on Hormuz Shipping Reached With Oman, still lends itself to misinterpretation by optimists. Nevertheless, from the top of the article:
Iran said it had reached an agreement with Oman on a proposed route for shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a potential step toward a reopening of the critical waterway for energy supplies.
A joint statement from Tehran and Muscat is under review and in the final drafting stage, with Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei saying negotiations between the two countries are “forward-moving” and a deal would be struck “if certain third parties do not obstruct this process”.
Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said Iran and Oman are negotiating a “temporary route” that would remain active for two to four months, with a significant portion of traffic passing through the Islamic Republic’s territorial waters.
As indicated, CNN has done a good job, including with its headline. From An agreement on the Strait of Hormuz is taking shape – but not one Trump wants:
Iran has persistently said it is talking solely with Oman on a temporary arrangement for the vital waterway.
And others are less confident that a deal is imminent and are skeptical about its longevity.
Iran and Oman have agreed on the geographical coordinates of a proposed safe shipping route in the strait, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said Wednesday. But he tempered expectations by adding “provided that certain third parties do not obstruct the process.”
A senior Gulf official familiar with the talks suggested there is about a 50:50 chance of a deal by Friday. One issue is that the Iranian delegation does not include the voice of the hardline Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which would have to sign off on the details, the source said….
Fars reiterated that Iran is negotiating only with Oman and those talks “are focused on a middle corridor that would safeguard Iran’s rights while taking Oman’s concerns into account.”
“Iran’s rights” is the term that raises many questions.
There are competing routes through the strait and what’s on the table appears to involve merging them – with Iran retaining a level of control that would be at odds with US wishes…
The prospect of such leverage is unacceptable in Washington, Abu Dhabi and Riyadh. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has repeatedly said any form of state control over international waters is against international law….
“From day one, it was clear that restoring the Strait of Hormuz to its pre-crisis status would have required either regime change in Iran or a sustained military effort to impose control over the waterway,” said Israeli security expert Danny Citrinowicz.
“Neither option was politically or strategically acceptable to Washington, given the enormous costs and long-term commitments they would require. Sometimes, the least desirable option is the only realistic one.”
While agreement remains elusive, the world’s oil markets must confront draining crude reserves.
If the Strait of Hormuz were opened today, it could still take up to 18 months to replenish depleted inventories, Amin Nasser, the chief executive of the world’s largest oil producer Saudi Aramco, said Tuesday.
On the state of Strait of Hormuz transits:
Strait of Hormuz over the last 24 hours: Another deadline goes by
Strait of Hormuz was supposed to be open today according to Axios. The day went by and nothing happened.
Instead, UKMTO reported another vessel that heard explosion nearby as it transited the Oman lane as if the… pic.twitter.com/d6X1MiVSGt
— HFI Research (@HFI_Research) August 6, 2026
Bloomberg reports that shippers are trying to throw a spanner in any fee requirements. Good luck with that. From Shipowners Say Hormuz Tolls Would Lead to More Charges Elsewhere
Eight of the world’s largest shipping industry associations urged the United Nations and International Maritime Organization to oppose any compulsory tolls or transit charges in the Strait of Hormuz.
The associations warned that introducing transit tolls or service fees would undermine the international legal framework governing navigation through international straits and create uncertainty for international shipping and global commerce.
The prospect of Iran imposing transit fees in Hormuz has focused attention on the fragility of global supply chains and raised concerns over how maritime choke points could be managed in future.Eight of the world’s largest shipping industry associations urged the United Nations and International Maritime Organization to oppose any compulsory tolls or transit charges in the Strait of Hormuz, warning that such a move could set a precedent for similar fees at other key maritime choke points.
In a joint letter dated Aug. 3 to UN Secretary-General António Guterres and IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez but published Wednesday, the groups said introducing transit tolls or service fees “that are a toll in all but name” would undermine the international legal framework governing navigation through international straits.
“Once such a precedent is established, it becomes increasingly difficult to resist similar measures elsewhere, creating uncertainty for international shipping and global commerce,” wrote the group, which included the International Chamber of Shipping, BIMCO, the World Shipping Council and others….‘
Meanwhile, Oman has told the IMO that it opposes mandatory transit charges in the strait. It has, however, indicated openness to examining voluntary agreements where ships could contribute to navigation support services aimed at improving maritime safety, security and environmental protection.
Bloomberg also tells us that the US blockade is proving to be pretty effective. From a href=”https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-05/dozens-of-idling-iranian-oil-tankers-show-us-blockade-is-working?srnd=homepage-middle-east” rel=”nofollow”>Dozens of Idling Iranian Oil Tankers Show US Blockade Is Working:
A growing flotilla of Iranian oil tankers is gathering off the country’s coast, a sign the renewed US naval blockade is disrupting Tehran’s energy exports and depriving it of much-needed revenue.
The US action is impeding the export of oil but also prevents the return of empty vessels needed for fresh loadings, with some 50 laden vessels idling along Iran’s coastline as of Tuesday.
The buildup comes as hopes rise for a potential interim deal between Washington and Tehran to free up shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, with Qatar saying a proposal had been drafted and both US and Iranian officials sounding optimistic.…Some 50 laden vessels — mostly carrying crude, but also fuels and liquefied petroleum gas — were idling along Iran’s coastline in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman as of Tuesday, according to nonprofit group United Against Nuclear Iran. That’s up from 45 a week earlier and 36 when the blockade was renewed on July 14.
Now to the Red Sea front. Ansar Allah is targeting more ships:
The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) reported that it received a report of an incident involving a tanker 95 nautical miles southeast of Yemen’s Aden.
The vessel’s master reported hearing a loud explosion in close proximity to the tanker, while all crew members… pic.twitter.com/b84MIuGOcI
— Al Mayadeen English (@MayadeenEnglish) August 5, 2026
From a related story in Al Mayadeen:
The Yemeni Armed Forces announced the successful targeting of the “Daisy” Saudi oil tanker in the Gulf of Aden, using a ballistic missile that accurately achieved its objective and forced the vessel to retreat.
A statement issued by YAF spokesperson Brigadier General Yahya Saree confirmed that the vessel was struck during the operation, as part of Sanaa’s maritime navigation ban on Saudi vessels under the “blockade for blockade” equation….
With the latest operation against the “Daisy” vessel, the total number of Saudi oil vessels targeted by the Yemeni Armed Forces has risen to nine since the naval blockade went into effect on July 22.
Oddly, it is Bloomberg (good on them for finally getting out of bed to do some reporting) that warns of an Ansar Allah escalation threat. From Yemen’s Houthis Say They’ll Target Tankers in Northern Red Sea:
Yemen’s Houthi militant group said it would attack Saudi oil tankers in the northern Red Sea, a potential fresh escalation in its attacks on shipping.
Houthi military spokesperson Yahya Saree said the move was a result of the kingdom diverting ships away from the Bab el-Mandeb chokepoint to the south of the waterway.
Now to the report of the Trump-Hegseth row in the Washington Post. This is still their lead story:
From the article:
President Donald Trump’s frustration over the Iran war boiled over at Camp David last week, where he demanded answers from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on why he had apparently been misled on extreme munitions shortages that now threaten to limit military options with Iran, two people familiar with the exchange told The Washington Post.
The encounter took place on the sidelines of his Cabinet meeting at Camp David on Friday where Trump vented at Hegseth that he thought the munitions issue “had been fixed,” according to both persons familiar with the conversation, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity due to fear of retaliation.
The shortages, particularly in long-range guided missiles and air-defense interceptors, have been part of the reason Trump has pulled back from launching additional massive strikes against Iran in recent days, one of the sources said….
Back at Camp David, as he was confronted by Trump over the bare weapons stockpile, Hegseth defended himself and blamed his deputy, Stephen Feinberg, for the shortages and for not ensuring Trump was fully apprised of the issue, both persons familiar said….
“This is 100% fake news. Literally never happened. And President Trump has the utmost confidence in Secretary Hegseth,” said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt in response to questions from The Post.
Trump said Monday that he had ordered and subsequently called off “the biggest attack since World War II,” pending claims of new negotiations over the Strait of Hormuz.
More of “The lady doth protest too much” about this alleged row:
However, Scott Ritter describes a deeply troubling doctrine change that seems well on the way to being implemented in response to declining US conventional weapons stocks and very long timetables for resupply.
From Ritter in a lightly-edited machine transcript:
As we speak, the Pentagon is redoing the nuclear posture of the United States nuclear posture policies um to include nuclear
employment plans. These are very important documents. Um why? Well, we now have to envision a war with China where we don’t have enough ammunition to fight China. We now have to envision a war with Russia where we don’t have enough ammunition to fight Russia. You remember uh Christopher Donahghue, the the recent commander of US forces in Europe. I think it was January of last year, he uh he came out and he said, “Kaliningrad’s only 47 kilometers, miles. Wow. We we could take it out tomorrow. We’ve been planning this. We’re ready for it. We’re going to do this. We got this in the bag.”
Well, no. First of all, the planning that he was done was predicated on a AI program called Maven. Um, Maven was used to attack Iran. And we now know that Maven doesn’t work because Maven just attacks the wrong things….
But the let’s say Maven did work. The ammunition necessary for Maven to succeed no longer exists.
It’s been taken away to the Middle East thanks to Pete Hegath. So now if we were going to fight the Russians we would have to first of all we would run out of ammunition very quickly which means then we need to have something to replace it.
And so now new war plans are being written as we speak that talk about the liberal use, the liberal use of tactical nuclear weapons early on in any conflict with Russia and China.
There’s no such thing as a limited nuclear war. A tactical nuclear weapon cannot be used in isolation.
So if we were to do these war plans, we’re committing suicide. That’s where we are today….
As we speak, the United States is redoing its nuclear war plans so that early on in any potential conflict with China and Russia, we would have no choice but to “liberally use.” That means not just once we’re going to sprinkle them around, tactical nuclear weapons, to compensate for the fact that we have no conventional weapons capable of fighting a peer level opponent like China and Russia. That’s where we are.
There have been reports over time of Iran president Pezeskian threatening to resign. One many months back was fiercely denied. However, as I read it, Pezehskain never understood his job. As far as I can tell (and readers can correct me), a President in Iran does not command an executive branch the way a US president does; his role is largely confined to domestic affairs. However, a war blurs those lines, plus Pezeshkian has been enlisted to face off with US officials for protocol reasons. My impression for some time is that he had been sidelined. He was even booed at the Supreme Leader’s funeral which makes the idea that he would want out credible. However, one can see why Iran would not want to go through elections now, if nothing else for the risk of terrorist operations at polling stations. From Tasnim News in Leader’s Office Denies Claim about Response to President’s Letter:
The Office of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution has rejected as baseless a recent claim about Ayatollah Seyed Mojtaba Khamenei’s alleged response to a letter from Pezeshkian.
In a statement released by its Public Relations Office, the Leader’s Office said that in recent days, “some quotations attributed to the Leader of the Islamic Revolution” have been circulated on social media, regretting that they have caused public confusion and fueled division within society.
The statement stressed that the only official sources for publishing messages, news and statements related to Ayatollah Seyed Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei are the Office of the Leader’s official website and the website of the Office for Preservation and Publication of the Leader’s Works…..
The statement came after cleric Mohammad Baqer Kharrazi claimed in a video circulated on social media that Ayatollah Seyed Mojtaba Khamenei had officially and publicly warned that if Pezeshkian resigns once again, his resignation will be accepted.
Kharrazi also alleged that Pezeshkian had submitted, or threatened to submit, his resignation 28 times.
Ted Postol has a very good talk with Daniel Davis on Iran’s Fatah and the Oreshnik. Postol takes some positions others have contested, namely that the Fatah and Oreshink do mainly surface damage and that Putin may have been oversold on what the Oreshnik can do. I listened at 1.5x speed.
For a contrasting view of the Oreshink’s sub-surface damage potential, see Mike Mihajlovic of Black Mountain Analysis. I am no expert, but Mihajlovic’s treatment is far more comprehensive and detailed (see many nerdy graphs, including details of construction and materials in underground structures), and hence more persuasive. He contends that seismic waves are part of the Oreshnik’s mode of destruction, a factor Postol does not address.
See:
Oreshnik Against Zelensky’s Bunker [i]
“Oreshnik” Enters The Chat [i]\
And a pre-Oreshink piece: Attacking the Underground Objects [i]
Finally, Larry Johnson has a post on a topic that has come up on Twitter earlier and is again in focus as reader comments yesterday suggest. Oddly, I have yet to see anyone finger contractors. Former Army Ranger Greg Stoker early in the war expected there would be mishaps due to poor maintenance because the Pentagon has outsourced logistics. It is a no brainer that food services would be early to be handed over to external providers. From US Navy and Marine Officers on Board Ships in the Arabian Sea Are Failing to Feed Their Enlisted Personnel Properly.
I have been in touch with two angry mothers. One has a son, a sailor who served on the USS Tripoli, who lost 30 pounds during his recent deployment. The other lady, who I met at Robert Barnes’ conference last weekend in Chattanooga, is the mother of a Marine who served on the USS Boxer. The sailor’s mom sent me photos, text messages and emails from her son describing the unpalatable cuisine. She has the receipts.
During a conversation with the Marine’s mother, I mentioned the emails I had received from the sailor’s mom. The Marine mother, who does not know the lady who had sent me the emails, told me her son had the same experience, i.e., lousy chow and big weight loss.
Pete Hegseth is calling these parents liars. According to Ms. Mayes-Osterman:
Both the Navy and Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth denied reports of food problems.
“My team confirmed the logistics stats for the Lincoln & Tripoli,” Hegseth said in a post on X. “Both have 30+ days of Class I supplies (food) on board. NavCent monitors this everyday, for every ship. Our sailors deserve — and receive — the best.”The only liar is Hegseth. He reportedly visited one of the ships and had a splendid meal in the Officer’s Mess. He did not eat in the dining facility for the enlisted personnel. That is a failure of leadership. My dogs eat better than these sailors and Marines.
This is not just a problem on the USS Tripoli and USS Boxer. Similar complaints came from sailors posted to the USS Abraham Lincoln. The officers on board these ships have a duty and obligation to ensure their troops are properly fed. In theory, officers are supposed to eat last. But that is not the reality on board the ships conducting war missions off the coast of Iran.
Winston Churchill summed up Royal Navy traditions as “Rum, buggery, and the lash.” But in the US, no rum.
-1024x683.jpg "The Key Battles for Senate Control Are Set")
