No country is allowed to charge tolls on an international waterway
A week after Washington and Tehran signed a fragile 60-day ceasefire, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio traveled to the Gulf to reassure nervous allies that the agreement had not handed Iran a strategic windfall. At the heart of his message was a firm declaration that the Strait of Hormuz belongs to international law, not to any coastal power's toll booth — a direct rebuttal to Iran's stated ambitions over the waterway. Yet the reassurance itself revealed the anxiety it sought to calm: nearly every substantive question the ceasefire was meant to settle remains openly contested, and the pause in hostilities may prove more prologue than resolution.
- Gulf states that host American troops and absorbed Iranian missile strikes are deeply unsettled by a ceasefire they had no hand in shaping.
- Iran's claim to charge transit fees in the Strait of Hormuz — and ceasefire language that seemed to leave the question open — has alarmed shipping nations and regional partners alike.
- Billions in unfrozen Iranian assets and a US sanctions waiver on oil exports could funnel tens of billions of dollars annually into Tehran's economy, with Gulf leaders fearing the money will arm rather than feed.
- Core disputes — nuclear inspections, ballistic missiles, Hezbollah's status in Lebanon, and the fate of American military bases — remain unresolved and actively denied by at least one side.
- Rubio's tour is an exercise in confidence-building, but the fractures in the agreement are already public, and the 60-day clock is running.
Marco Rubio arrived in Abu Dhabi on Tuesday to calm allies rattled by a ceasefire Washington had struck with Iran just one week earlier. His two-day tour of the UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain — all countries hosting significant American military forces — carried a single urgent message: the United States would not permit Iran, or any nation, to charge tolls on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. "It's an international waterway," Rubio said flatly. "No country is allowed to charge tolls or fees. That's existing international law."
The reassurance was necessary because Iran had explicitly claimed that right, and the ceasefire text itself called for a 60-day period of toll-free passage followed by negotiations between Iran and Oman over the strait's "future administration" — language Gulf leaders read as a deferral of Iranian ambitions rather than their abandonment.
The agreement was already fraying. Trump had announced that Iran agreed to readmit international nuclear inspectors; Iran denied any such commitment existed. Iran's president, Masoud Pezeshkian, ruled out any limits on his country's ballistic missile program, arguing the weapons were the only thing that had prevented Iran from suffering the fate of Gaza. And ceasefire language referencing a halt to military operations "including in Lebanon" appeared designed to bind Israel against further strikes on Hezbollah, even though Israel and Lebanon had already reached their own separate agreement.
The financial stakes sharpened the tension further. Iran stood to receive roughly $12 billion in unfrozen assets and loans within weeks, with oil revenue potentially exceeding $30 billion annually once sanctions restrictions eased. Trump insisted the money would be controlled by the US and spent on food and medicine. Iran's central bank governor flatly rejected that account, saying no such restriction existed in the memorandum of understanding.
Gulf states were divided in their responses. Qatar, which brokered the deal, remained invested in its success. The UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain — all struck by Iranian missiles during the recent conflict — were skeptical and fearful the funds would flow into Iran's military. Meanwhile, Iran's longer strategic aim of reducing American presence in the region had not disappeared; Pezeshkian flew to Pakistan on Tuesday, his first foreign trip since the war ended, exploring a broader regional realignment.
Shipping traffic through the strait had rebounded sharply, with 36 vessels transiting on Monday alone. But the ceasefire was less a settlement than a suspension — a 60-day interval in which both sides would continue contesting the terms of anything more lasting. Rubio's reassurances were calibrated to hold the line, even as the fractures in the agreement grew harder to ignore.
Marco Rubio arrived in Abu Dhabi on Tuesday with a message meant to steady nerves: the United States would not allow Iran—or any nation—to extract payment from ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, no matter what Tehran claimed about its rights to do so. The secretary of state was embarking on a two-day tour of the Gulf, visiting the UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain, three countries hosting substantial American military installations and all of them rattled by the ceasefire agreement Washington had just struck with Iran a week earlier. The anxiety was understandable. A 60-day truce had been signed, but the details remained contested, the long-term implications murky, and the question of what Iran might do with newly unfrozen assets—potentially $6 billion immediately, with another $6 billion as a loan from Qatar—hung over every conversation.
Rubio's position on the strait was unambiguous. "It's an international waterway," he said. "No country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway. That's existing international law." The statement was necessary because Iran had explicitly claimed the right to levy such charges, and the ceasefire agreement itself contained language that observers read as leaving the door open for future negotiations on exactly that question. The agreement stipulated a 60-day period of toll-free passage, after which Iran and Oman would discuss "the future administration and maritime services in the strait of Hormuz" in line with international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states. To many Gulf leaders, that sounded like Iran had merely postponed its ambitions rather than abandoned them. Rubio was trying to convince them otherwise, though his confidence—"I don't think we have anybody to convince around here in that regard"—suggested he was not entirely certain of his own argument.
The ceasefire itself was already fracturing at its edges. Donald Trump had claimed that Iran had agreed to allow international nuclear inspectors back into the country, but Iran flatly denied any such agreement existed. The question of Iran's ballistic missile program loomed even larger. Gulf states wanted limits on those weapons written into any final deal. Iran's president, Masoud Pezeshkian, made clear that would not happen. "If we did not have our missiles, which are for our self-defence, Israel and America would have ploughed through Iran the way they did Gaza," he said. Meanwhile, the issue of Hezbollah and Lebanon remained unresolved—the ceasefire agreement referenced an "immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon," language that seemed designed to bind Israel to an end of hostilities against the militant group, even though Israel and Lebanon had already reached their own separate ceasefire agreement in early June.
The financial dimensions of the deal were equally contentious. Iran expected to receive roughly $12 billion in unfrozen assets and new loans within weeks. Over the next two months, with the US Treasury having issued a sanctions waiver on Iranian oil exports, Tehran could expect at least another $8 billion in oil revenue. Some Iranian analysts were projecting annual oil income could exceed $30 billion once sanctions restrictions were fully lifted—a dramatic reversal from years of economic strangulation. Trump claimed the unfrozen assets would be controlled by the United States and used to purchase American food and medical supplies. Iran's central bank governor rejected that characterization, saying the memorandum of understanding imposed no such restriction and that Iran would make purchasing decisions based on quality and price.
The Gulf states themselves were divided. Qatar had played the central role in brokering the agreement and remained invested in its success. But the UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain—all of them targets of Iranian missile strikes during the recent conflict, though the US had declined to disclose the scale of damage—were skeptical and angry. They feared the unfrozen money would flow directly into Iran's military rather than civilian needs. There were also deeper geopolitical currents at work. Iran's long-term strategy was to push the United States out of the region entirely, and some Iranian voices were exploring whether a rapprochement with Gulf states might be possible through a broader alliance involving Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt. Pezeshkian had already flown to Pakistan on Tuesday in his first overseas trip since the war ended. The UAE, with its deepest economic ties to Iran among Gulf states, was showing signs of wanting to defuse the crisis in bilateral relations.
What remained clear was that the 60-day ceasefire was less a resolution than a pause—a breathing space in which both sides would continue to contest the terms of any lasting settlement. Shipping traffic through the strait had already rebounded to its highest levels since early March, with 36 vessels passing through on Monday alone. Iran's chief negotiator was working with Oman on a long-term framework for managing the waterway. But nearly every substantive issue—nuclear inspections, ballistic missiles, Lebanon, the use of unfrozen assets, the future of American military presence in the Gulf—remained unresolved and actively disputed. Rubio's reassurances were meant to buy time and confidence, but the fractures in the agreement were already visible to anyone paying attention.
Notable Quotes
It's an international waterway. No country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway.— Marco Rubio, US Secretary of State
If we did not have our missiles, which are for our self-defence, Israel and America would have ploughed through Iran the way they did Gaza.— Masoud Pezeshkian, Iran's President
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did Rubio need to make this trip at all? Couldn't he just issue a statement?
Because these three countries—the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain—they house American military bases and they've just been hit by Iranian missiles. They're frightened. A statement from Washington isn't enough when you're worried your neighbor might use newly unfrozen billions to build better weapons.
But the ceasefire language itself seems to leave room for Iran to charge tolls later. Rubio's saying one thing, but the agreement says something else.
Exactly. That's the problem. The agreement talks about a 60-day period of free passage, then discussions about "future administration." To the Gulf states, that reads like Iran is just waiting out the clock. Rubio is trying to convince them that won't happen, but he's essentially asking them to trust his interpretation of a document that's deliberately ambiguous.
What about the money? Twelve billion dollars unfrozen, potentially thirty billion a year in oil sales. That seems like the real issue.
It is. The Gulf states see that money and they think: military expansion, proxy wars, regional destabilization. Trump says it'll be controlled and spent on food and medicine. Iran says no, we'll spend it how we see fit. Nobody really knows what happens next.
And the ballistic missiles—Iran just said no to any limits on those?
Their president said the missiles are for self-defense and they'll never be part of a deal. The Gulf states want limits written in. So that's another fundamental disagreement that hasn't been resolved.
It sounds like this ceasefire is barely holding.
It's 60 days of not shooting. But almost everything that matters—tolls, missiles, nuclear inspections, what happens in Lebanon—is still being fought over. Rubio's job is to convince the Gulf that America has their back. Whether that's actually true depends on what happens in the next two months.