Europe, ignoring Donald Trump’s ultimatums, is considering proposals to impose shipping fees on Iran in the Strait of Hormuz, attempting to balance the security of the energy corridor with international law and recognizing the Islamic Republic’s rights over the critical shipping channel for international transport.
This isolates the US and makes any threat from the US a diplomatic joke. The base scenario foresees that the fees will not be mandatory, but will concern exclusively the provision of specialized navigation services, under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
British Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy warned that imposing mandatory tolls would be “catastrophic”. However, government circles recognize that charging for services in natural channels — such as the Strait of Malacca or the English Channel — is an international practice.
Diplomatic deadlock and threats
The US is demanding that Tehran publicly commit that the Strait is open and that commercial ships will not be targeted. US President Donald Trump has described the ceasefire agreement as “dead”, but has kept the channel for talks open.
At the same time, he has issued strong threats against Iran, declaring that “1,000 missiles are aimed at the Islamic Republic” and warning of total destruction, invoking the name of Allah in a move to escalate communications.
These statements came in the wake of the funeral of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, where calls were heard to assassinate the US president. The new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, vowed revenge, describing it as “the will of our nation”.
The Oman Model and the Two Routes
Oman, in collaboration with British lawyers, has developed a plan based on the principles of managing the Strait of Malacca.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi went to Oman for consultations, while his Turkish counterpart Hakan Fidan expressed cautious optimism that a solution could be found over the weekend (11-12/7).
However, the situation remains fragile. During the talks in Muscat, the capital of Oman, it was proposed that both the southern route in Omani waters and the northern route in Iranian waters be fully operational. It should be noted that Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi conveyed Oman’s new proposal to Iran, but there were no statements or other news.
During the Iran-Oman talks, the Omani side proposed that both the southern route in Omani waters and the northern route in Iranian waters be fully operational.
The southern route would be opened without any need for permits and under the same conditions as before the war. The Iranians were unable to reach an agreement on this proposal at the meeting and were forced to refer the plan back to Tehran for internal review.
Oman proposes that maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz be conducted through two separate routes with independent management
The southern route, which passes through Omani territorial waters, would allow free passage of ships in accordance with pre-war conditions.
Ships using the northern route, which passes through Iranian territorial waters, must obtain prior permission from Iran. However, no tolls or fees will be charged under the agreement.
Omani proposal rejected by Iran
The proposal came to light as Iran’s foreign minister held talks with Omani and Qatari officials in the Omani capital Muscat (11/7), as part of a diplomatic effort to salvage a fragile agreement on the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil supply passes.
“What we demand is that the Iranians issue a public statement acknowledging that all the channels of the Strait of Hormuz are open and that they are no longer firing at ships, either they give us this statement or we will not have a good result for them,” the American side said.
Iran does not approve of the Omani proposal, which works completely in favor of the United States, according to initial reactions. Overall, the Memorandum of Understanding seems to be slowly but surely collapsing.
Despite initial optimism, the US has so far violated almost every condition. Moreover, the two sides appear unable to agree on the most basic issues. If this continues, another round of conflict could soon be on the cards.
Reactions and International Law
Qatar, through its spokesman Majed al-Ansari, expressed strong reservations: “Ceding sovereignty over the Strait to Iran, in a manner that is contrary to international law, is tantamount to holding it hostage to any radical element that wishes to control it.”
During an IMO session in London, Oman’s representative, Khamis bin Mohammed Al Shamakhi, made it clear that international law does not allow the imposition of transit fees.
He proposed, however, voluntary arrangements to enhance security, limit pollution and deal with maritime emergencies (fires, collisions).
The Economic dimension of the risk
The shipping community is watching with anxiety, as tensions directly affect insurance costs and risk premiums.
The US claims to have facilitated the passage of 800 commercial ships and 380 million barrels of crude oil since early May.
In contrast, the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) reiterate that “foreigners have no role in the Strait of Hormuz.”
The future of the Strait depends on whether Tehran accepts a model of “inclusive governance” (as in Malacca) or whether it insists on a policy of dominance that makes navigation subject to blackmail.
With Russia and China blocking resolutions condemning Iran at the IMO, the field remains divided, with the global economy held hostage by developments in one of the world’s most critical energy corridors.
