US and Iran pause attacks for second day as Oman pushes Strait of Hormuz diplomacy

The United States and Iran completed a second consecutive day without reported direct attacks on July 26, 2026, creating the most significant diplomatic opening since 13 nights of escalating United States airstrikes and Iranian retaliatory operations threatened to widen the Middle East war.

United States President Donald Trump paused the Pentagon’s bombing campaign late on July 24 after nearly two weeks of nightly strikes against Iranian military, coastal and logistical targets. Iran subsequently stopped attacks against countries hosting United States forces and indicated that the restraint would continue as long as Washington did not resume bombing.

United States Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz said Donald Trump had paused military operations to give negotiations additional space. Diplomacy involving Iran, Oman and other intermediaries was continuing at senior political and technical levels, although no new ceasefire agreement had been announced.

The military pause has not ended the wider confrontation. The United States naval blockade against Iran remains in operation, commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is near a three-week low, and the United States military has redirected, boarded or disabled vessels accused of breaching its restrictions.

Iran continues to assert authority over vessel movements through the Strait of Hormuz, while the United States supports a less restrictive navigation arrangement. The disagreement over who controls shipping through the waterway remains one of the most difficult obstacles to restoring the interim agreement reached in June.

The lull has also failed to calm the Red Sea. Ship movements through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait fell sharply after Yemen’s Houthis attacked Saudi Arabian oil installations and threatened a blockade of Saudi shipping, exposing how the United States-Iran war has spread across several connected maritime and military fronts.

Why did Donald Trump halt United States strikes on Iran after 13 consecutive nights?

The Pentagon suspended attacks after conducting 13 nights of intensifying strikes against Iranian targets. The United States said the campaign was intended to deter Iranian attacks on commercial vessels and protect navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

Donald Trump’s decision reflected both diplomatic and military calculations. United States officials had raised concerns that the campaign was exhausting the initial list of selected targets and increasing pressure on inventories of precision weapons and air-defence interceptors.

The United States military must maintain sufficient interceptor stocks to defend bases, ships, personnel and allied countries from Iranian missiles and drones. Continuing nightly offensive operations while responding to Iranian retaliation could have placed additional strain on those defensive resources.

The bombing campaign had also produced limited evidence that Iran was prepared to abandon its effort to control vessel movements through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran answered United States attacks with strikes against neighbouring countries hosting United States forces, creating an expanding cycle in which each side presented its operations as retaliation.

Pausing the attacks gave Donald Trump an opportunity to test whether Iran would reciprocate. Iran did so during the weekend, creating two days without the pattern of nightly United States bombing followed by Iranian counterattacks.

The pause does not prevent Donald Trump from ordering renewed strikes. The United States administration has maintained that diplomacy is its preferred outcome while warning that Iran will face further military action if it refuses serious negotiations or resumes attacks.

The decision should therefore be understood as conditional restraint rather than a termination of the campaign. Both governments retain the military capacity and political justification they previously used to resume fighting after earlier pauses.

What has Iran promised while the United States bombing pause remains in place?

Iran has adopted an attack-for-attack position under which Iranian forces will refrain from new operations for as long as the United States continues to hold fire. The message has been communicated to Washington through diplomatic channels.

Iranian officials remain cautious about the durability of the lull. Tehran’s leadership has experienced repeated breakdowns in ceasefire arrangements and views the latest pause as potentially tactical rather than evidence of a fundamental change in United States policy.

The Iranian government has not agreed to abandon its demands concerning the Strait of Hormuz, the United States naval blockade or the restrictions placed on Iranian shipping. Iran also continues to link its military posture to what it describes as its right to respond to United States attacks.

Iran’s weekend restraint is nevertheless important because Iranian operations during the preceding escalation affected several Gulf countries hosting United States forces. Those attacks increased the possibility that regional governments could be drawn more directly into the war.

An Iranian attack during the pause would give Donald Trump a clear reason to resume bombing and could weaken the position of mediators urging Washington to continue negotiations. Continued restraint allows Iran to present itself as responding proportionately rather than pursuing an unconditional regional campaign.

Tehran also faces growing domestic pressure. Repeated bombing, economic disruption, shipping restrictions and uncertainty have affected households and businesses while leaving Iranians uncertain whether the conflict is moving towards resolution or another escalation.

Iran therefore has practical reasons to preserve the pause, but the government is unlikely to accept a settlement that appears to surrender control over the Strait of Hormuz or leave the United States blockade permanently in place.

How is Oman trying to revive the damaged interim agreement between Washington and Tehran?

Oman has remained one of the central intermediaries between the United States and Iran. Omani officials have maintained communication with Tehran and Washington while attempting to restore the interim agreement signed in mid-June.

The original agreement created a 60-day period intended to support negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme, maritime security and the wider conflict. The renewed United States bombing campaign severely damaged that arrangement before the negotiating period was completed.

Omani mediation is now focused on converting the informal halt in attacks into a more stable framework. The immediate objective is to prevent either side from interpreting a shipping incident, missile launch or military movement as justification for restarting the conflict.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said discussions with Oman over safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz had made progress and were continuing. However, the central disagreement over the waterway’s administration remains unresolved.

One possible compromise would allow Iran to retain a formal role in managing vessel transit while reducing restrictions on commercial ships. Such an arrangement could provide Tehran with political recognition of its regional position without allowing Iran to halt or selectively control most international shipping.

The United States would require guarantees that commercial vessels could pass safely and without discriminatory treatment. Washington would also need a mechanism for verifying compliance before reducing or ending the naval blockade.

Even a limited maritime agreement could lower oil prices, restore tanker confidence and create space for negotiations on nuclear and security questions. Failure would leave the Strait of Hormuz vulnerable to another rapid collapse in traffic.

Why does the United States naval blockade remain the largest obstacle to a durable ceasefire?

The United States has continued enforcing its naval blockade even though airstrikes have paused. The United States military said it had redirected 12 commercial vessels, disabled two and boarded two during the latest enforcement period.

The blockade allows Washington to maintain military and economic pressure without conducting nightly airstrikes. It also demonstrates that the United States does not consider the current lull equivalent to a restored ceasefire.

Iran views the blockade as an attack on its sovereignty, economy and ability to control waters close to its coastline. Tehran has argued that the interim agreement allows Iran to manage vessel movements through the Strait of Hormuz.

The United States rejects an arrangement that gives Iran broad authority over an international energy corridor. Washington wants commercial vessels to pass without being stopped, attacked or subjected to politically selective restrictions.

The two positions are difficult to reconcile because maritime control has become both a strategic and symbolic issue. Iran sees influence over the strait as one of its strongest forms of leverage, while the United States treats freedom of navigation as a core regional security interest.

The blockade also creates daily opportunities for escalation. A vessel may ignore instructions, change course, turn off its transponder or be suspected of transporting restricted cargo. Any attempt to board or disable that ship could produce casualties or retaliatory action.

A durable ceasefire will therefore require more than an agreement not to bomb each other. The United States and Iran need procedures for vessel identification, transit approval, inspection disputes, enforcement and emergency communication.

Without such rules, the military pause could be broken by a maritime incident even if neither government initially intends to restart the wider war.

What does the collapse in Strait of Hormuz traffic mean for energy markets and Gulf economies?

Commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remained at a three-week low during the weekend. Fewer than 10 commodity vessels passed through the waterway on each day, despite the absence of new direct United States and Iranian attacks.

The low traffic demonstrates that shipowners and insurers do not yet consider the pause reliable. Tanker operators must evaluate the risk of blockade enforcement, Iranian action, mines, missiles, drones and sudden changes in military policy.

The Strait of Hormuz carried approximately one-fifth of global oil flows before the war. The waterway is also critical for liquefied natural gas exports, refined products and other commodities moving from the Persian Gulf.

A prolonged reduction in traffic can create supply disruption even when oil-producing countries continue operating their fields and refineries. Crude that cannot be transported safely or predictably may remain in storage or be redirected through more limited pipeline routes.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates possess some capacity to bypass the strait, but the available alternatives cannot replace all maritime exports from the region. Qatar’s liquefied natural gas trade is particularly dependent on safe passage through Hormuz.

Energy prices eased after the United States and Iran paused attacks, reflecting expectations that diplomacy could reduce the probability of a larger supply shock. However, markets remain exposed to any indication that talks are failing or military operations are resuming.

Gulf governments also face pressure from higher insurance costs, interrupted trade and the risk of attacks against infrastructure. Even countries seeking neutrality may be affected because they host United States forces, operate major ports or depend on regional shipping routes.

How has the Houthi threat created a second maritime crisis at Bab el-Mandeb?

The diplomatic opening around the Strait of Hormuz coincides with deteriorating security at the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, the southern entrance to the Red Sea.

Yemen’s Houthi movement attacked Saudi Arabian Oil Company facilities in Jizan and Yanbu and threatened to prevent ships from loading or unloading cargo at Saudi ports. The Houthis have presented their operations as retaliation for Saudi-led military action in Yemen.

Only 11 commodity vessels passed through Bab el-Mandeb on July 26, the lowest daily total in months. Seven were oil tankers, while the remaining vessels carried other commodities through the corridor.

The decline shows that the regional shipping crisis is no longer confined to the Persian Gulf. A vessel carrying Saudi or Emirati crude through the Red Sea may avoid the Strait of Hormuz but still face risks when passing Yemen and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

The Bab el-Mandeb route connects Asian and Middle Eastern trade with the Suez Canal and Europe. Ships avoiding the waterway must travel around the Cape of Good Hope, adding time, fuel costs and pressure on freight capacity.

The Houthi campaign complicates United States-Iran diplomacy because the Houthis are aligned with Tehran but retain their own political and military objectives. Iran may influence the movement, but the Houthis are not simply an Iranian military unit that can be automatically switched off through a bilateral agreement.

Saudi Arabia also faces a separate decision about whether to expand its military response in Yemen. A renewed Saudi-Houthi war could continue disrupting Red Sea trade even if the United States and Iran restore their ceasefire.

Why is Benjamin Netanyahu’s Washington visit important to the next phase of Iran diplomacy?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to meet Donald Trump in Washington on July 28. The visit will give Israel an opportunity to influence whether the United States extends the pause or prepares another round of military operations.

Benjamin Netanyahu has supported Donald Trump’s efforts to weaken Iran and pressure Tehran over its nuclear programme. Benjamin Netanyahu has also indicated that Israel would accept a diplomatic outcome if it produced the required security concessions without renewed intensive fighting.

Israel remains concerned that a temporary pause could allow Iran to rebuild missile capabilities, reorganise military infrastructure or delay decisions on its nuclear programme. Those concerns could lead Benjamin Netanyahu to favour strict conditions and rapid enforcement mechanisms.

Donald Trump must balance Israeli security priorities with military advice, Gulf Arab concerns, energy prices and the possibility that another bombing campaign will fail to produce a different Iranian response.

The Washington meeting will therefore test whether Israel and the United States share the same threshold for resuming military action. Israel may consider some Iranian activities intolerable even when Washington prefers to preserve diplomatic space.

The meeting also matters because the original war began through coordinated United States and Israeli action. A new military phase could again involve direct Israeli operations, particularly if negotiations fail over nuclear restrictions or missile capabilities.

A continued pause would not eliminate Israeli pressure. It would shift the contest towards verification, intelligence assessments and the conditions attached to any restored agreement.

Can the United States and Iran turn a conditional pause into a durable political settlement?

The current lull has several characteristics of a fragile ceasefire but lacks the formal structure required for long-term stability. Both sides have stopped attacking, but each describes its restraint as conditional and reversible.

A durable agreement would need to address the Strait of Hormuz, the United States naval blockade, Iran’s nuclear programme, regional military deployments and the activities of Iranian-aligned armed groups.

The immediate maritime issues may be easier to negotiate than the nuclear dispute. Vessel transit rules can be tested through shipping activity, while nuclear commitments require inspections, technical limits and decisions about sanctions relief.

The United States will seek guarantees that Iran cannot use negotiations to preserve control of the strait while continuing indirect pressure through the Houthis or other armed groups. Iran will seek an end to attacks and blockade measures without appearing to surrender its strategic leverage.

Both governments also face domestic political constraints. Donald Trump must show that military pressure produced concessions, while Iranian leaders must demonstrate that resistance protected Iran’s sovereignty and security.

The pause has already reduced immediate regional risk and softened energy-market fears. That creates an incentive for governments, businesses and mediators to prevent another collapse.

However, the history of the conflict shows that informal restraint can disappear quickly. A disputed vessel interception, proxy attack or intelligence assessment could return both sides to retaliation before negotiators complete a formal agreement.

The July 27 position is therefore cautiously improved but far from resolved. The United States and Iran have stopped the nightly cycle of attack and counterattack. They have not yet agreed on the rules that would prevent it from starting again.

What are the key takeaways from the United States-Iran attack pause and Hormuz diplomacy?

• The United States and Iran completed a second consecutive day without reported direct attacks on July 26, 2026, after the Pentagon halted a campaign involving 13 consecutive nights of strikes against Iranian targets.
• Iran indicated that it would continue withholding retaliatory attacks for as long as the United States maintained its bombing pause, making the current lull conditional rather than a formally agreed ceasefire.
• United States Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz said Donald Trump was giving negotiations additional space, while Oman and other intermediaries continued discussions at senior political and technical levels.
• The United States naval blockade against Iran remains operational, with United States forces reporting that commercial vessels had been redirected, boarded or disabled during enforcement actions around the Strait of Hormuz.
• Commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remained at a three-week low, showing that tanker operators and insurers do not yet consider the weekend pause sufficient to restore normal energy trade.
• Iran and Oman are discussing safe vessel passage, but Tehran continues claiming authority to manage traffic while Washington demands less restrictive navigation through the strategically important international waterway.
• Ship traffic through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait also fell after Houthi attacks on Saudi oil facilities, creating a second maritime threat affecting Saudi exports, Red Sea trade and access to the Suez Canal.
• Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s July 28 meeting with Donald Trump could influence whether the United States extends the diplomatic pause or prepares renewed military pressure over Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes.