New York Times: Let Iran Control Hormuz, Charge Service Fees
TEHRAN — A New York Times opinion essay has said that the United States should accept Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz and allow Tehran to charge fees for passage.
The convergence comes as Iran and Oman work on arrangements for the future management of shipping through the strategic waterway, with Tehran insisting that the strait will not simply return to its prewar status.
In a guest essay published Monday under the headline “Let Iran Control the Strait of Hormuz,” Rosemary Kelanic, director of the Middle East program at Defense Priorities, stated that Washington should recognize the changed circumstances surrounding the waterway.
“The strait needs to be reopened, even if that means Iran tolls transit through it,” Kelanic wrote.
She said that the United States has been unable to guarantee unrestricted shipping through Hormuz, while Iran has demonstrated its ability to restrict maritime traffic without having to attack every vessel attempting to cross.
Kelanic said a prolonged U.S.-led campaign to purportedly restore unrestricted shipping could carry greater military and economic costs for Washington, while stating that a system under which Iran receives payment for facilitating maritime passage could provide an incentive for Tehran to allow greater traffic.
“Monetizing safe passage would encourage Iran to allow through as many ships as possible so it can collect more tolls,” she wrote.
The proposal discussed by Kelanic also intersects with Iran’s own position on charges for vessels using Hormuz. Iranian officials have said Tehran wants to levy service costs for navigation, security, rescue and pollution-control services rather than impose a conventional tax on ships merely exercising passage rights.
That distinction has previously been examined by JPMorgan.
In a research memo reported by the Financial Times, JPMorgan analysts Natasha Kaneva, Lyuba Savinova and Artem Fakhrutdinov examined whether Iran and Oman could legally impose mandatory charges associated with “navigational safety” in the Strait of Hormuz. The analysis distinguished between a charge imposed simply for transit and fees connected to specific maritime services.
JPMorgan cited arrangements in countries including Denmark and Turkey as precedents for charging vessels for services such as pilotage, navigation assistance, safety measures and emergency operations.
The bank’s analysis said that, by structuring the charges as service fees rather than straightforward transit tolls and coordinating with Oman, Iran could seek to establish a framework consistent with international maritime law.
The issue is particularly relevant because Iran and Oman have been negotiating a new arrangement for managing shipping through Hormuz. The proposed framework would combine the existing northern and southern routes into a single two-way corridor, with Iran exercising oversight over vessels entering the Persian Gulf.
Iran has also rejected the notion that the waterway should simply revert to the previous system following the war, stressing that its security, sovereignty and national interests must be reflected in any future arrangement.
The New York Times essay said that a system involving Iranian authority and transit payments could ultimately be preferable to continued restrictions on shipping, particularly as prolonged disruption could place increasing pressure on global oil inventories.
Kelanic said the economic consequences of a prolonged Hormuz standoff could be severe if declining global inventories eventually translate into a sharp increase in oil prices.
She also suggested that cooperation between Iran and Oman could form part of a broader regional arrangement for managing the waterway.
“Iran is already in talks with Oman about the strait’s future,” she wrote, saying that joint custodianship could encourage regional cooperation.
The JPMorgan assessment provides an additional financial and legal dimension to the proposal, indicating that the debate over Iran’s role in Hormuz is not limited to the question of military control but also involves the practical mechanisms through which maritime traffic could be regulated and secured.
According to the analysis, Iran’s plans are potentially defensible under international law if the charges are structured as payments for navigational and security services rather than simple transit tolls.
Iran’s position that vessels should pay for services rather than simply for the right of passage is therefore central to the emerging framework.
The New York Times essay said Washington should recognize the new circumstances surrounding the waterway rather than pursue an attempt to impose an arrangement that cannot be sustained.
“None of this is optimal for the United States,” Kelanic wrote. “But the sooner we accept this new reality, the better for consumers, the world economy and regional stability.”