Almost like the mafia saying you have to pay protection money
At the narrow passage where roughly a fifth of the world's seaborne energy flows, Iran and Oman are quietly negotiating a fee system for vessel transit — a move that places Tehran in direct confrontation with both the Trump administration and the international maritime order. Iran, having already demonstrated its capacity to choke global shipping in the wake of strikes on its territory, is now attempting to convert that leverage into revenue, clothing what critics call a transit toll in the legal language of 'specialised services.' The dispute raises a question as old as empire and as urgent as today's energy markets: who holds dominion over the passages that connect the world?
- Iran has established a new Persian Gulf Strait Authority and begun requiring permits for vessel passage, signaling a deliberate move to assert sovereign economic control over one of the planet's most consequential shipping corridors.
- The legal architecture Iran is constructing is fragile by design — framing charges as service fees rather than tolls is a calculated attempt to sidestep the UN maritime convention that guarantees free transit, though experts warn the distinction may not survive scrutiny.
- The Trump administration has drawn a hard line, with President Trump demanding free passage and Secretary Rubio declaring any fee system a dealbreaker that would collapse broader diplomatic negotiations with Tehran.
- Oman, initially reluctant, has warmed to the arrangement as a financial opportunity, introducing a regional actor whose cooperation could lend the scheme a veneer of legitimacy — or complicate American pressure to kill it.
- The standoff is unresolved and unsigned, leaving global energy markets and shipping operators suspended between Iran's demonstrated willingness to disrupt traffic and Washington's equally demonstrated willingness to escalate.
In late May, Iran announced the creation of a Persian Gulf Strait Authority and began negotiating with Oman over a system that would charge vessels for transiting the Strait of Hormuz — one of the world's most critical chokepoints for oil and gas. The talks, confirmed by Iranian officials, envision ships paying fees with Oman receiving a share of the revenue. Oman initially resisted but has since grown receptive to the financial prospect. No agreement has been signed.
The backdrop is a disruption Iran itself engineered. Following American and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets in late February, Tehran effectively throttled commercial traffic through the strait, sending energy prices upward and demonstrating to the world — and to itself — the extraordinary leverage it holds over global markets. Roughly one-fifth of the world's seaborne oil and gas passes through those waters. Iran has since treated that leverage as a negotiating asset it intends to keep.
The legal maneuvering is deliberate. A straightforward toll on an international strait would violate the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which guarantees unimpeded transit rights. Iran is not a signatory, but legal scholars regard the convention's core principles as binding under customary international law. By labeling charges as fees for 'specialised services' rather than payment for passage, Tehran is attempting to construct a legal defense. James Kraska of the US Naval War College called the distinction thin, comparing it to mafia protection money and noting that Iran has observed navigational norms in the strait for decades.
The Trump administration has rejected the scheme without qualification. President Trump declared the waterway international and demanded free passage; Secretary of State Rubio called any fee system a dealbreaker for diplomatic talks. What remains is a collision between Iran's practical power to disrupt global shipping and the legal and political framework that has governed these waters for generations — with no resolution yet in sight.
In late May, Iran announced the creation of a new authority to oversee the Strait of Hormuz and began quietly negotiating with Oman over a system that would charge vessels for passage through one of the world's most critical shipping corridors. The move represents a calculated escalation that puts Tehran directly at odds with the Trump administration, even as both sides maintain they are pursuing diplomatic solutions.
The talks between Iran and Oman, confirmed by Iranian officials to the New York Times, center on a straightforward proposition: ships transiting the strait would pay fees, with Oman receiving a cut of the revenue. Oman, which borders the Gulf of Oman adjacent to the strait, initially resisted the idea but has since warmed to the financial opportunity. Nothing has been signed, and whether an agreement will materialize remains uncertain.
The context for these negotiations traces back to late February, when American and Israeli forces struck Iranian targets. Iran's response was not limited to military retaliation. Tehran effectively choked off commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, nearly halting international shipping and driving energy prices upward across global markets. The disruption served a dual purpose: it was both retaliation and a demonstration of leverage. Roughly one-fifth of the world's seaborne oil and natural gas passes through the strait. By showing it could throttle that flow, Iran revealed a bargaining chip it has since refused to relinquish.
On May 20, Iran's newly established Persian Gulf Strait Authority announced on social media that it had defined the boundaries of its management zone and declared that vessels would need permits before passing through. Iranian state media reported separately that a new mechanism was being implemented to control maritime traffic and charge for what officials called "specialised services." The language choice is deliberate. A straightforward toll on passage through an international strait would violate the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which guarantees vessels the right to transit such waterways without obstruction. Iran is not a signatory to the convention, but international law experts regard its core principles as binding on all nations under customary law. By framing charges as fees for services rendered rather than payment for passage itself, Iran is attempting to construct a legal shield for what would otherwise constitute a clear violation.
James Kraska, a professor of international maritime law at the US Naval War College and visiting professor at Harvard Law School, acknowledged that reasonable fees are permitted in some situations but cautioned that Iran would bear the burden of proving its charges are genuinely tied to services provided. He noted that the navigational rules governing international straits are "virtually universally accepted" and that "Iran has acquiesced to this for decades." Attempting to disguise a transit charge as a service fee, Kraska said, would be "almost like the mafia saying you have to pay protection money."
The Trump administration has responded with unambiguous rejection. Speaking from the Oval Office on Thursday, President Trump stated flatly: "We want it free. We don't want tolls. It's international. It's an international waterway." Secretary of State Marco Rubio escalated the rhetoric, declaring that any Iranian fee system would be unacceptable and would render a broader diplomatic deal impossible. Trump, who had previously suggested the United States might itself levy charges on the strait or share revenues, abandoned that line entirely, insisting instead on free passage.
What unfolds now is a collision between Iran's assertion of control over a waterway it borders and the international legal framework that has governed passage through straits for decades. Iran has demonstrated it possesses the practical ability to disrupt global shipping. The question is whether it can construct a legal justification for monetizing that power, and whether the Trump administration will tolerate any attempt to do so.
Citações Notáveis
We want it free. We don't want tolls. It's international. It's an international waterway.— President Donald Trump
The navigational rules governing international straits are virtually universally accepted, and Iran has acquiesced to this for decades.— James Kraska, professor of international maritime law at the US Naval War College
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why would Oman agree to this? It seems to invite American retaliation.
Oman sees revenue. The strait is adjacent to its territory. If Iran is going to control the waterway anyway, Oman calculated it might as well capture some of the proceeds rather than watch Iran keep all of it.
But the legal argument—framing fees as services—that seems thin.
It is thin. But Iran isn't trying to convince international lawyers. It's trying to create enough ambiguity that enforcement becomes difficult. If they call it a service fee, they can claim they're not violating the Law of the Sea. The burden shifts to whoever wants to challenge them.
What happens if a ship refuses to pay?
That's the real question. Iran has already shown it will stop traffic. A ship captain faces a choice: pay the fee or risk being detained or harassed. Most will pay.
And Trump's position is just no?
Completely no. He's not negotiating on this point. He's made it a red line for any broader deal with Iran. That's unusual—it's a very specific demand.
Does Iran care what Trump thinks?
Iran cares about the revenue and about establishing precedent. Whether Trump cares enough to enforce his position militarily is a different question. That's what Iran is testing.