Those who benefit from this traffic must also pay their share
At the narrow throat of the Persian Gulf, where roughly a fifth of the world's oil has long flowed freely, Iran is now asserting something ancient and something new: the right to charge passage. In negotiations with Oman, Tehran is formalizing a toll system for the Strait of Hormuz, a move born of war, economic desperation, and a calculated bid for lasting leverage. The dispute cuts to a question humanity has never fully settled — who owns the arteries of global commerce, and at what cost does the world defend the answer.
- A waterway that once carried 135 ships daily has fallen to near-zero traffic, as missile threats, sea mines, and uninsurable risk have driven shipping companies to simply stop sending vessels.
- Iran has already begun collecting payments — up to $2 million per vessel — through a newly created Persian Gulf Strait Authority, turning a wartime blockade into a nascent revenue system.
- The UAE, Saudi Arabia, the US, and Europe are pushing back hard, warning that accepting one nation's toll authority over an international strait would permanently fracture the principle of freedom of navigation.
- Trump has sent contradictory signals — threatening military action against Iranian tolls while simultaneously floating the idea of a joint US-Iran venture to manage the strait.
- A fragile ceasefire has held since April 8, with peace talks mediated through Pakistan, but both sides have made clear they are prepared to resume fighting if terms cannot be reached.
The Strait of Hormuz — barely 24 miles wide at its narrowest — has become the defining pressure point of the US-Israeli war on Iran that began in late February. Since the conflict started, the strait has been effectively closed, collapsing daily ship traffic from roughly 135 vessels to near zero and sending energy prices and bond markets into turmoil across the globe.
Iran is now moving to make that control permanent. In talks with Oman, Tehran is designing a formal toll system for Hormuz transit, framing it as cost-sharing for the security and navigation services Iran and Oman provide. Ambassador Mohammad Amin-Nejad explained the logic plainly: those who benefit from the passage should pay their share. A new body, the Persian Gulf Strait Authority, has already begun collecting fees — in some cases as high as $2 million per vessel — and Iran claims that ships from China and South Korea have coordinated with the Revolutionary Guard's navy to move through, though neither country has confirmed the arrangement.
The reaction from the wider world has been sharp. The UAE's Sultan Al Jaber warned that allowing a single country to control the world's most important waterway would end freedom of navigation as it has been understood — and that failing to defend the principle now would mean paying for it for a decade. The US, Europe, and Gulf states all oppose Iran's claim, and the Trump administration has signaled a potential military response if tolls are formally implemented, even as Trump himself has floated contradictory ideas including a joint US-Iran management venture.
Iran's motivations extend beyond the war itself. Tehran has signaled it intends to hold onto Hormuz leverage even after fighting stops — as both a deterrent against future US and Israeli strikes and a revenue stream for an economy gutted by conflict. Amin-Nejad pushed back against what he called American miscalculation, saying Washington had believed sanctions and pressure would resolve the crisis in days, underestimating Iran entirely.
A ceasefire has held since April 8, with the two sides exchanging messages through Pakistan, but the gap between them remains wide and both have left the door open to renewed fighting. The question of who controls the Strait of Hormuz — and on what terms the world's oil flows through it — will be among the most consequential disputes to resolve when the guns finally go quiet.
The Strait of Hormuz, a waterway barely 24 miles wide at its narrowest point, has become the fulcrum of a larger conflict. Since late February, when the US-Israeli war on Iran began, the strait has been effectively closed—a blockade that has rippled outward to reshape global energy markets and force a reckoning over who controls one of the world's most critical passages.
Iran is now formalizing what it has already begun to enforce. In talks with Oman, the Iranian government is designing a permanent toll system for vessels transiting the strait, which normally carries roughly a fifth of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas, along with aluminum, fertilizers, and other commodities. Mohammad Amin-Nejad, Iran's ambassador to France, laid out the logic in an interview this week: Iran and Oman must bear the costs of providing security and managing navigation through these waters. Those who benefit from the traffic, he said, should pay their share. The system will be transparent, he insisted, though he did not specify what rates would look like or how they would be calculated.
The numbers tell the story of disruption. Before the war, roughly 135 ships passed through the strait daily. In recent weeks, that figure has collapsed to near zero. Iran claims to have allowed 26 tankers and other vessels through between Tuesday and Wednesday—an unusually high number for the current period, but still a fraction of normal flow. The reasons shipping companies cite are straightforward: the risk of missile and drone attacks, sea mines, and the astronomical insurance costs that now accompany any transit. Most operators have simply stopped sending vessels until the war ends.
Iran has already begun collecting what amounts to tolls. A new body called the Persian Gulf Strait Authority has been established, and payment requests have reached as high as $2 million for safe passage. Iran claims that countries including China and South Korea have coordinated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' navy to move their vessels through, though neither nation has confirmed this arrangement or whether they were charged.
The closure has had immediate global consequences. Energy prices have surged. Government bond markets have sold off as inflationary pressures mount. The disruption has alarmed not just the US and Europe, but Iran's Arab neighbors, who see in this move a dangerous precedent. Sultan Al Jaber, head of the UAE's main oil company, warned that accepting a single country's control over the world's most important waterway would end freedom of navigation as it has been understood. "If we do not defend this principle today," he said, "we will spend the next decade defending against the consequences."
Iran frames the toll system as a necessary cost-sharing mechanism, but it also serves other purposes. Tehran has signaled it intends to maintain control over Hormuz even after the war concludes, partly as a deterrent against future attacks from the US and Israel, and partly as a revenue source for an economy ravaged by conflict. President Trump has sent mixed signals—at various points suggesting the US itself could charge fees, warning Iran against implementing tolls, and even floating the idea of a joint US-Iran venture to manage the strait.
Amin-Nejad downplayed tensions with the UAE and Saudi Arabia, characterizing the covert attacks those countries conducted against Iran before the ceasefire as responses to Iranian strikes. He framed the underlying disputes as "accumulated misunderstandings" that could be resolved once the war ends. He also pushed back against what he called American miscalculation, saying the US had believed pressure and sanctions could resolve the conflict in three or four days, imagining Iran as weak as Venezuela.
A fragile ceasefire has held since April 8, with Iran and the US exchanging messages through Pakistan about a potential peace deal. But the two sides remain far apart, and both have indicated they are prepared to resume fighting. The Strait of Hormuz—its control, its tolls, its status as international waters or Iranian territory—remains a central point of contention. How this dispute is resolved will shape not just the region's future, but global energy security for years to come.
Citas Notables
Those who wish to benefit from this traffic must also pay their share, and the system will be transparent— Mohammad Amin-Nejad, Iranian ambassador to France
Once you accept that a single country can hold the world's most important waterway hostage, freedom of navigation as we know it is finished— Sultan Al Jaber, head of UAE's main oil company
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why would Iran want to formalize a toll system now, in the middle of a war?
Because they can. They've already closed the strait and established control. Formalizing it—making it look like a legitimate cost-sharing arrangement with Oman—gives them legal cover and a way to sustain revenue even if the fighting stops.
But doesn't that risk bringing the US and Europe down on them harder?
Probably. But Iran seems to be betting that the economic pain of a closed strait will eventually force negotiation. A toll system is also a way to say: we're not closing it forever, we're managing it. That's a different narrative.
What about the shipping companies? They're just not going through at all right now.
Exactly. The tolls are almost beside the point if no one's willing to transit anyway. The real issue is the missiles and mines and the insurance costs. Until the war ends, a toll system is theoretical.
So this is about the peace negotiations?
It's about positioning. Iran is saying: when we do reopen this, it won't be on the old terms. We'll have a say in how it's managed and who pays. It's a way of locking in leverage before the ceasefire becomes permanent.
And the UAE and Saudi Arabia are furious?
They're terrified. If Iran can hold the strait hostage and extract payment, it sets a precedent. Every other country with a strategic waterway starts thinking the same way. The whole system of free navigation collapses.
Can Trump actually stop this?
Militarily, maybe. But that risks reigniting the war. Diplomatically, he's already sent contradictory signals—first suggesting the US could charge fees itself, then warning Iran against it. He doesn't seem to have a clear strategy beyond opposition.