Iran's chief negotiator says Tehran will administer Strait of Hormuz under international law

The comment frames the outcome of the negotiations as a structural change rather than a return to the status quo. By invoking international law, Iran is seeking to anchor its claimed role in a legal framework, even as the practical implications for commercial shipping, naval movement and third-country access remain to be defined in the broader agreement.

Qatar and Pakistan have been named as mediating states. According to their account, the negotiations are designed to produce a final deal within 60 days. The timeline is tight and covers the period during which any interim understandings reached so far would need to be translated into a binding text covering navigation, security and the legal status of the waterway.

Role of mediators and timeline

Among the parties at the table is a US delegation. J.D. Vance has been identified in coverage as part of the American team engaging with Tehran. The presence of senior US officials suggests Washington is treating the talks as a substantive channel rather than a procedural one, even though the final shape of any arrangement remains unclear.

Switzerland has also featured prominently in the reporting around the talks, with multiple mentions across the source material. Swiss involvement has historically included hosting diplomatic back-channels between the United States and Iran, though the facts available do not specify Switzerland's current formal role in this round.

Strategic significance of the waterway

The strategic weight of the Hormuz waterway makes the question of who administers it a matter of immediate interest for energy markets and for states dependent on Gulf oil shipments. Any arrangement that assigns administrative responsibility to Iran is likely to be scrutinised by shipping insurers, naval planners and trading partners, particularly regarding freedom of navigation guarantees for non-Iranian vessels.

Qalibaf's statement was made after the latest round of negotiations and is therefore best read as a public framing of what Iran believes it has secured at the table. It is not, on its own, a legal instrument; the operative text, if one is concluded, would be the agreement produced within the 60-day window described by Qatar and Pakistan.

What happens next

Beyond the immediate diplomatic track, the claim carries regional implications. Gulf states that border the strait, as well as extra-regional navies that routinely transit it, are likely to seek clarification on how an Iranian administrative role would interact with existing bilateral arrangements and with international maritime conventions.

The 60-day target is the most concrete operational marker in the available reporting. Whether the mediators, Iran and the US delegation can convert the negotiating momentum into a final agreement before that window closes will be the next test of the process that Qalibaf sought to characterise with his statement on Tuesday.

Iranian state media has so far presented the talks as an affirmation of Iranian sovereignty over the waterway. Independent confirmation of the substantive content of the negotiations, beyond Qalibaf's public remarks and the mediators' timeline, is limited in the available source material.