Why Are Washington-Muscat Relations Deteriorating? Trump Threatens to “Blow Up” Oman

Policy assessment – Progress Center for Policies, London

Introduction
President Donald Trump’s threat against the Sultanate of Oman represents the tip of the iceberg in a relationship that has been strained since the beginning of his current term in the White House. The threat adds to a pattern of neglect and growing distance that observers have noted between the two capitals, particularly since the outbreak of the latest American-Israeli war against Iran. What lies behind the deterioration of ties long described as historic, traditional, and excellent?

I. The Facts

On 27 May 2026, President Donald Trump sparked significant international controversy during a cabinet meeting when he threatened to “blow up” Oman if it did not “behave” in the context of tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz. This came in response to reports of discussions between Iran and Oman regarding the imposition of fees or joint management of passage through the strait. Trump stated: “The strait is international waters, and no one will control it… Oman will behave like everyone else, or we will have to blow them up. They understand that.” The remarks caused considerable shock, given that Oman is a traditional American ally.

Behind this threat lies a series of diplomatic developments. On 25 and 26 April 2026, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi visited Muscat — his first Gulf visit following the outbreak of American-Israeli escalation on 28 February 2026. He met with Sultan Haitham bin Tariq and Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi, discussing security in the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf waters, as well as efforts to end the conflict with Washington. He asserted that the American military presence was increasing insecurity, and called for a regional security framework free from external intervention.

On the direct relationship with Washington, Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi visited Washington on 27 February 2026 — the day after a round of Iranian-American negotiations in Geneva concluded and the day before the war began — and met with Vice President JD Vance. In American media interviews, he defended diplomacy, argued that a peace deal was achievable, and expressed regret following the strikes, maintaining that the war was not of Iran’s making. Several American analyses concluded that the Omani minister’s positions had departed from neutrality and appeared to align with Tehran, effectively advocating for the Iranian side — a stance that angered the American administration.

The structural backdrop to this tension relates to changes following the death of Sultan Qaboos in January 2020. While Sultan Haitham bin Tariq has maintained a policy of “positive neutrality,” he has placed greater emphasis on balance with Iran alongside a notable retreat from openness toward Israel. Under Qaboos, Oman played a key role during the Obama administration in organising a secret American-Iranian negotiating channel in Muscat that contributed to the conclusion of the 2015 nuclear deal; Oman also hosted a visit by Netanyahu in 2018. Under Sultan Haitham, however, Oman declined to join the Abraham Accords, parliamentary resolutions in 2023 hardened significantly toward Israel, and al-Busaidi affirmed Oman’s satisfaction with the current level of relations, stopping well short of full normalisation.

Further complicating matters are indications that Washington harboured suspicions over alleged smuggling routes between Oman and the Houthi movement in Yemen, as well as services Muscat was believed to be providing to Tehran to circumvent sanctions. Finally, although Oman suffered attacks on its ports — Salalah and Duqm — during the war against Iran, just as other Gulf states did, official Omani statements refrained from blaming Iran. Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, meanwhile, declared that Iran was not responsible for the strikes on Oman and Turkey, pointing instead to Israel.

II. Analysis
The Threat as a Symptom of Structural Crisis, Not an Isolated Event
Trump’s threat to “blow up” Oman cannot be read as an isolated incident or a verbal slip. It is, rather, the crudest expression of accumulated structural tensions that predated the recent war. The unprecedented violence of American rhetoric toward a traditional ally — over a matter as limited as coordination discussions that Muscat officially denied — reveals that the issue runs far deeper than the Strait of Hormuz itself. The strait is the occasion, not the cause; the real cause lies in a fundamental shift in Oman’s position within the American-led regional order.

A Collision of Two Projects: Normalisation vs. Neutrality
At the heart of the crisis is the collision of two incompatible visions. Trump is advancing a project that treats normalisation with Israel as the benchmark of regional loyalty — a logic he has taken to its extreme by describing normalisation as “obligatory.” Oman, by contrast, remains committed to its doctrine of neutrality and its rejection of full normalisation, placing it, in the view of the Trump administration, outside the required alignment. Washington’s displeasure with Muscat is therefore not an exception but the application of a broader logic that divides the region into those who embrace the normalisation project and those who resist it.

The Decline of Omani Mediation and the Redistribution of Roles
Among the most significant strategic consequences of this deterioration is the erosion of Oman’s traditional mediation role — for decades its most valuable asset in its relationship with Washington. As Oman has lost the trust of the American administration, mediation functions on the Iranian file have migrated to alternative channels, most notably those involving Pakistan and Qatar. This shift affects not only Oman but reflects a broader redistribution of regional roles in the post-war period, in which Washington rewards those who align with its project and sidelines those who insist on their independence — even at the cost of a longstanding historical relationship.

Additional Dimensions: Smuggling and Sanctions Evasion
Intersecting with the political dimension are security and economic concerns that deepen the crisis: Washington’s suspicions regarding smuggling channels between Oman and the Houthis, and services believed to have been rendered by Muscat to Tehran to circumvent sanctions. Whatever the accuracy of these suspicions, they signal that Washington no longer views Oman as a neutral broker but as a party tilting toward the Iranian axis — a fundamental shift in the American perception of the Sultanate’s role.

III. Conclusions

Trump’s threat to “blow up” Oman — notwithstanding Muscat’s reaffirmation of its respect for international law and the absence of any plans to alter transit rules through the strait — reveals a deep structural crisis in the relationship that extends far beyond the Hormuz file, which served as the pretext for the threat rather than its true cause.

Washington considers that Oman has abandoned its traditional posture of neutrality, and that through its foreign minister’s statements it appeared to align with Tehran and give support to Iranian positions — a development that has transformed the American perception of the Sultanate from neutral broker to a party leaning toward the Iranian axis.

The shift in Oman’s diplomatic doctrine following the death of Sultan Qaboos is the deepest key to this crisis. Oman has moved from a “positive neutrality” that served both sides to a “balance” that tilts more markedly toward Tehran while growing more reserved toward Israel.

The core of the tension lies in the collision between Trump’s normalisation project — which treats normalisation as a measure of loyalty — and Oman’s doctrine rejecting full normalisation, anchored by hardened parliamentary resolutions toward Israel since 2023.

The crisis is compounded by security and economic suspicions relating to alleged smuggling routes between Muscat and the Houthis, and to services facilitating the circumvention of Iranian sanctions — suspicions reinforced by Oman’s refusal to blame Iran for the strikes on its ports, despite suffering them in common with other Gulf states.
This deterioration places Oman before a delicate equation: preserving its doctrine of independent neutrality collides with the logic of alignment that the Trump administration is imposing, while yielding to American pressure would jeopardise its historical standing as a neutral mediator — a standing built over decades and, once lost, not easily recovered.