Iran has discussed partnering with the Gulf state of Oman — an American ally — in a system charging fees for vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz, ignoring the Trump administration’s warnings against demands for payment to pass through the critical international waterway.
It is unclear whether anything concrete will come out of the discussions. But the talks appear to signal that the United States and Iran are no closer to ending a war that has badly damaged the global economy despite repeated claims to the contrary by President Trump. At least publicly, neither side has shown a willingness to compromise.
After coming under attack by American and Israeli forces in late February, Iran brought commercial traffic in the strait to a near halt, crippling international shipping and driving up energy prices. With its leverage over the global economy established, Iranian officials began discussing ways to maintain a hold on the waterway and use it to generate revenue.
On Wednesday, amid the discussions with Oman, Iran’s newly created Persian Gulf Strait Authority said on social media that it had “defined the boundaries of the Strait of Hormuz management supervision area” and that passage would require a permit from the authority. The Gulf of Oman is adjacent to the strait and needs to be traversed before reaching it from the east.
Mr. Trump has at various points over recent months condemned the possibility of any Iranian tolls and floated the notion that the United States could itself charge them as the self-declared winner of the war. He also suggested that the revenue might be shared.
On Thursday, he dismissed the notion of any payment for passage through the strait. “We want it free,” he said, speaking in the Oval Office. “We don’t want tolls. It’s international. It’s an international waterway.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio also rejected the idea. “It can’t happen,” he said. “It would be unacceptable. It would make a diplomatic deal unfeasible if they were to continue to pursue that.”
Even after reaching a fragile cease-fire with the United States, Iran has pursued the idea of imposing fees on ships transiting the strait, through which about a fifth of the world’s seaborne oil and natural gas pass. Iranian officials have said they might include charges for service, a transit fee or environmental charges, among others.
In recent days, Iran’s state-controlled foreign media arm, Press TV, has reported that Iran has created a new mechanism to control maritime traffic through a designated route and to charge fees for “specialized services.”
Two people familiar with the discussions over management of the waterway said that Iran was not planning a toll system, which would charge simply for transit. Instead, the talks with Oman have explored a proposal to charge vessels fees for services.
Oman had initially rejected a joint partnership with Iran on the strait but is now in discussion over a share of the revenues, according to two Iranian officials familiar with the talks but not authorized to speak publicly. The officials said Oman told the Iranians that it was willing to use its influence with neighbors in the Gulf, including Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and with the United States to push the plan, having realized the potential economic benefits of a fee system.
The talks between Oman and Iran over a potential payment system in the strait were first reported by Bloomberg News.
Iran and Oman appear to be emphasizing that the proposed system would involve fees, not tolls, a legally significant distinction. A tolling system that simply charges ships to pass through the waterway would be illegal under international law, but charging fees for actual services rendered to vessels, such as waste disposal at a port, is allowed under certain circumstances.
Still, if the fee system is just a toll by another name, it will not be considered legal, experts say.
The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea established the right of vessels to traverse international straits unimpeded as long as they comply with regulations, procedures and practices for safety and pollution control. Iran is not a party to the convention and has said it is technically not constrained by it. Oman is a signatory.
But the rules and principles in the convention reflect customary international law and are binding on all nations, whether or not they are signatories, said James Kraska, a professor of international maritime law at the U.S. Naval War College and visiting professor at Harvard Law School.
The navigational regime for straits, which bars payment for passage, is “virtually universally accepted,” he noted, and “Iran has acquiesced to this for decades.”
“Reasonable fees are permitted in some situations,” Mr. Kraska said.
But the problem for Iran would be proving that the fees it seeks are indeed reasonable and correspond to the services it provides, he noted.
“They are trying to cleverly fit” their proposal into the legal framework, Mr. Kraska said. Still, he said, charging for passage in the waterway that has long been free, all while calling the toll a “fee” would be “almost like the mafia saying you have to pay protection money.”
