Iran denies negotiating with the US over Hormuz and only acknowledges a channel with Oman.

The Italian news agency ANSA has reported that Iran denies negotiating with the United States over the Strait of Hormuz and insists its talks are confined to Oman. In the same dispatch, the agency notes that US President Donald Trump has lashed out at his Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, without specifying the reason. The story has been picked up by the Arab, Turkish and African press, but no Spanish outlet has published it.

Why it matters

Hormuz is the chokepoint through which a significant share of the world's oil passes. Any movement in that area — real, rumoured or merely the subject of negotiation — has an immediate effect on energy prices and the security of global supply chains. For the Spanish reader, the relevance is twofold: what happens there affects the domestic energy bill and the stability of a region on which Europe depends more than it would care to admit. Moreover, the fact that no Spanish outlet has covered this story turns the gap itself into news.

The facts

The Italian agency ANSA has published a dispatch setting out the Iranian position on negotiations concerning the Strait of Hormuz. According to the report, Tehran denies negotiating with the United States and insists its talks are limited to Oman, the country that has historically acted as intermediary in the region. In the same dispatch, the Italian agency notes that US President Donald Trump has lashed out at his Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, without specifying the reason for the rebuke or whether it bears any direct relation to the Hormuz matter.

The story has been picked up by media in countries with opposing interests in the region. The Arab, Turkish and African press have all covered the same issue, which reinforces the existence of an underlying fact: there is a public discrepancy between what Iran claims to be doing and what the US administration suggests or implies. That discrepancy is the story, not a problem to be resolved.

The Strait of Hormuz connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and, from there, with the Indian Ocean. Its strategic importance is beyond dispute: it is the natural exit route for oil from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Iran itself. Any threat of closure, blockade or even simple restriction of maritime traffic in that area has immediate repercussions for global energy markets. Iran's refusal to acknowledge direct negotiations with Washington could be read as a manoeuvre to buy time, an attempt to save face before its own public opinion, or a genuine indication that no talks exist. The briefing does not allow a definitive choice between these three readings.

What each side says

**Italy (ANSA).** The Italian agency, which published the dispatch on its digital edition, maintains that Iran denies negotiating with the United States over Hormuz and says it only talks to Oman. It adds that Trump is attacking his Defence Secretary, Hegseth. It is the source that provides the most information, but also the one with the lowest level of verification: 2 out of 5. It is not specified whether the information comes from official Iranian statements, leaks or diplomatic conversations.

**Arab press.** Arab outlets have picked up the same story, although the briefing does not detail which angle they prioritise or which sources they cite. Their coverage matters because the region is directly implicated: Oman, the country with which Iran claims to be negotiating, is an Arab actor, and the Strait of Hormuz washes the shores of several Arab states.

**Turkish and African press.** Both blocks of media have covered the story, confirming that the matter has transcended the regional sphere. Turkey has energy and geopolitical interests in the area; African outlets, for their part, reflect the continent's interest in a route on which part of its energy supply depends.

**Spanish media.** None has published the story. This is not a judgement: it is a verifiable fact. While the press of four distinct geographical blocks was covering the matter, Spanish outlets remained silent. The reasons for that silence are not in the briefing and cannot be attributed to negligence, lack of resources or disinterest without falling into speculation. What can be stated is that the Spanish reader has not had access to this information through their mainstream outlets.

What the machine says

To cross-check the information, the community sensor OpenSky ADS-B was consulted — a network of independent receivers that tracks air traffic via transponder signals. The query was run over the Hormuz maritime corridor, with the idea of detecting unusual air movements that might corroborate or refute intense diplomatic or military activity in the area. The sensor returned no records in the window reviewed. The reason was not an absence of traffic, but a technical error: the source returned an HTTP 429 code, indicating that the permitted request limit had been exceeded.

This data point has a double reading. On the one hand, the lack of records neither confirms nor refutes anything: a technical error is not proof that there is no activity. On the other hand, the fact that the sensor could not be consulted underscores a broader reality: independent verification of this type of information is difficult, requires paid tools or restricted access, and depends on infrastructure that is not always available. Vessel traffic, which would be the most relevant indicator for assessing activity at Hormuz, requires a paid subscription that was not taken out. It was not checked.

What we do not know

The list of unknowns is considerable. We do not know whether Iran is actually negotiating with the United States and denying it for tactical reasons, or whether ANSA's claim rests on a misunderstanding or an unreliable source. We do not know what has led Trump to lash out at his Defence Secretary, nor whether that rebuke is related to Hormuz or to any other matter. We do not know whether Oman is acting as an intermediary in indirect talks between Tehran and Washington — a role it has played in the past — or whether its role is limited to humanitarian or commercial mediation.

Nor do we know why Spanish outlets have ignored the story. They may have deemed it insufficiently relevant, may not have had access to the sources, or may be waiting for a confirmation that never arrives. None of these hypotheses can be verified with the available data. The only thing that can be stated with certainty is that the information exists, that it has been covered by media in several countries, and that the Spanish reader has not had access to it through their usual channels.

The gap as news

The most interesting aspect of this case is not what Iran says, nor what the United States implies, nor even the tension at Hormuz. It is the gap between what one part of the world is reading and what another part is not reading. While the Arab, Italian, Turkish and African press reports on a diplomatic discrepancy of the first order, the Spanish reader remains oblivious to it. That information asymmetry has consequences: a citizenry that does not know what is happening on a route critical to its energy supply cannot demand explanations from its leaders, nor assess the impact that other countries' decisions will have on their electricity bill or the price of fuel.

The immediate future of this story depends on factors beyond the reach of this analysis. If Iran officially confirms or denies the negotiations, if the White House clarifies the Hegseth episode, if some Spanish outlet finally decides to cover the story, the picture will change. For now, what we have is information half-verified, a discrepancy between blocks, and a silence that is itself a data point. In a world where information travels at the speed of light, the fact that a matter of this magnitude has not crossed the Spanish border says as much about the state of the press as it does about the nature of the matter itself.

Piece written and translated automatically from cross-checked sources in several countries.