There is a division in Tehran.
At the narrow throat of the Persian Gulf, where a fifth of the world's oil passes daily, European governments are quietly studying whether a voluntary fee model — borrowed from the cooperative spirit of the Strait of Malacca — might offer a way through an impasse that military force and diplomatic ultimatums have so far failed to resolve. The proposal, shepherded by Oman and shaped by British legal minds, seeks to reframe the question of Hormuz not as one of sovereignty and submission, but of shared stewardship and practical service. Yet the ceasefire between Washington and Tehran is already fracturing under the weight of competing interpretations, ongoing strikes, and deep divisions within Iran itself. Thousands of sailors remain stranded in the backlog, waiting for the world's great powers to agree on something as ancient and contested as the right of passage.
- The sixty-day ceasefire commitment to free commercial navigation through Hormuz is unraveling, with the US and Iran reading the same agreement as if it were written in different languages.
- American forces struck over 150 targets in southern Iran this week alone, while Iran retaliated against US bases in Kuwait and Bahrain — escalation continuing even as diplomats negotiate in London and Muscat.
- Thousands of sailors remain stranded and a backlog of ships sits frozen after Iran rescinded approval for a southern evacuation route, forcing the IMO to suspend its own plan.
- Europe's voluntary fee framework — modeled on Malacca's cooperative safety mechanism and backed by Oman as intermediary — is the most concrete diplomatic off-ramp on the table, but faces resistance from Iran's Revolutionary Guard, skepticism from Gulf states, and obstruction from Russia and China at the IMO.
- Tehran itself is divided: some factions see no obligation to cooperate with international maritime law, while others signal openness to a transparent service-fee arrangement that preserves Iranian dignity without ceding the strait to foreign control.
One of the world's most consequential shipping lanes has become the site of a negotiation that nobody quite trusts. The Strait of Hormuz — through which roughly a fifth of global oil flows — is now the subject of a deceptively modest proposal: voluntary fees for navigational services like collision prevention and environmental protection, modeled on the cooperative framework that has governed the Strait of Malacca for decades. Oman, which controls most of the navigable waters, has developed a legal proposal in partnership with British lawyers and offered to send experts to Tehran to explain it. Britain's deputy prime minister has warned that compulsory tolls would be catastrophic, though some colleagues acknowledge that service fees for specific navigational support are common in natural waterways worldwide.
The backdrop is a ceasefire between Washington and Tehran that is already coming apart. Signed last month, the memorandum of understanding committed Iran to ensure safe commercial passage for sixty days with no charges — but each side reads it differently. The US insists it grants no authority to Iran over which routes ships may use. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps says foreigners have no role in the strait and that it has honored its commitments as it understands them. This week, American forces struck more than 150 targets in southern Iran, claiming they were eliminating drone and missile capabilities used to harass shipping. Iran struck back at US bases in Kuwait and Bahrain.
Inside Tehran, the fractures are real. Some Revolutionary Guard factions view the February American attack as unlawful and see no reason to engage with international maritime law. Others are willing to work with the international community. Iran's foreign minister was scheduled to travel to Oman for talks on strait governance, and the Iranian embassy in London has expressed interest in a transparent service-fee model embedded within a broader regional framework — one that could incentivize cooperation rather than coerce it.
The human cost is accumulating. US Central Command says its forces have helped more than 800 commercial vessels transit since early May, but a backlog of stranded ships persists and thousands of sailors remain trapped. The IMO secretary general believed he had secured Iran's agreement to a southern evacuation route, only for Tehran to rescind it. At an IMO council meeting in London this week, Oman's delegate affirmed that international law guarantees transit passage and does not support transit fees — while also endorsing voluntary arrangements for navigational safety services as worth exploring.
The broader diplomatic architecture is fractured. Gulf and European states pushed for an IMO resolution condemning Iran's conduct; Russia and China blocked it. Donald Trump declared the interim ceasefire deal over on social media, while simultaneously threatening fresh military action. Qatar warned that granting Iran effective sovereignty over the strait would make the world hostage to whoever holds power in Tehran at any given moment.
The long-term governance of Hormuz now depends on whether Iran will accept a Malacca-style framework — one that preserves its interests while allowing global commerce to move. The ceasefire itself commits Iran to hold talks with Oman on a permanent arrangement. But with strikes continuing, internal divisions unresolved, and the meaning of the existing agreement still in dispute, the ships keep waiting, the sailors remain stranded, and the question of who truly controls this narrow passage remains open.
One of the world's most critical shipping lanes sits at the center of a delicate negotiation that nobody quite trusts. The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of global oil passes, has become the subject of a proposal that sounds almost mundane on its surface: voluntary fees for navigational services. But the strait's control, and whether ships can move through it safely, has become entangled in the fractured ceasefire between the United States and Iran, internal power struggles in Tehran, and the question of whether any international agreement can actually hold.
European governments are now studying a framework that would allow charging for navigational support—things like collision prevention, fire response, environmental protection—without imposing compulsory tolls. The model comes from the Strait of Malacca, the waterway linking the Indian and Pacific oceans, where more than 120,000 vessels transit annually and voluntary contributions, notably from Japan, fund a cooperative safety mechanism. Oman, which controls most of the navigable waters in the Strait of Hormuz, has developed a legal proposal along these lines in partnership with British lawyers and has offered to send experts to Tehran to explain it. Britain's deputy prime minister, David Lammy, has said that compulsory tolls would be catastrophic, though some of his cabinet colleagues acknowledge that payment systems for specific services are standard practice in many natural waterways.
The timing matters because the ceasefire between Washington and Tehran, signed last month, is already fraying. The memorandum of understanding committed Iran to ensure safe passage of commercial vessels through the strait with no charges for sixty days. But the agreement is being interpreted differently by each side. The United States claims it does not mean ships need Iran's permission to transit or that Tehran can dictate which routes they use. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps navy, meanwhile, has stated that foreigners have no role in the strait and that it has met its commitments as it understands them. This week alone, the US struck more than 150 targets in southern Iran, claiming it was destroying the capability to harass shipping with drones, missiles, and small boats. Iran responded by hitting American bases in Kuwait and Bahrain.
Inside Tehran, the divisions run deep. Some factions within the Revolutionary Guard view the February American attack on their forces as unlawful and see no reason to cooperate with international maritime law. Others want to work with the international community. One diplomat described it plainly: there is a division in Tehran. The Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, was scheduled to travel to Oman for talks focused on the strait and shipping safety, described as a continuation of consultations that have been underway for one or two months. The Iranian embassy in London has expressed interest in proposals from the Energy Policy Research Group, which argues that a transparent service fee embedded within an inclusive regional order could incentivize cooperation—not a crude toll imposed simply for passage.
The practical stakes are enormous. Since early May, US Central Command claims its forces have facilitated the transit of more than 800 commercial vessels and 380 million barrels of crude oil through the corridor. But there is a backlog of stranded ships, and thousands of sailors remain trapped. The IMO secretary general, Arsenio Dominquez, believed he had secured Iran's agreement to a southern route that would allow evacuation, but Tehran rescinded that approval, forcing the UN agency to suspend the plan. Diplomats are now trying to determine whether Iran is insisting all ships use the northern route close to Iranian waters to clear the backlog, or simply requiring that all vessels seek permission from the country's Persian Gulf Strait Authority to use the southern route.
At a meeting of the International Maritime Organization council in London this week, Oman's delegate emphasized that international law guarantees the right of transit passage through straits used for international navigation and does not support imposing transit fees. But he also said Oman saw value in exploring voluntary arrangements for navigational support services that could enhance maritime safety and security. The proposal faces skepticism from other regional powers. Qatar's foreign ministry spokesperson warned that giving Iran sovereignty over the strait in a way that contradicts international maritime law would essentially make the world hostage to whatever radical element might seize control at any time.
Meanwhile, the broader diplomatic picture remains fractured. An alliance of Gulf and European states pressed for a resolution condemning Iran for seeking to control the strait by attacking ships. Russia and China blocked it. Russia said the motion ignored the root causes of the crisis; China called it one-sided and beyond the IMO's mandate. Donald Trump, on social media, declared the interim ceasefire deal "over" but said the US would continue talks toward a permanent agreement. He also made fresh threats, saying 1,000 missiles were locked and loaded aimed at Iran should it attempt to assassinate him.
The long-term governance of the strait now hinges on whether Iran will accept a framework modeled on Malacca—one that preserves its dignity and interests while allowing the world's commerce to flow. The ceasefire agreement itself commits Iran to hold talks with Oman on a long-term plan. But with military strikes continuing, internal divisions in Tehran unresolved, and fundamental disagreements about what the existing ceasefire even means, the path forward remains uncertain. The ships waiting to pass through remain waiting. The sailors remain stranded. And the question of who controls one of the world's most vital waterways remains unanswered.
Citas Notables
Compulsory tolls would be disastrous— Britain's deputy prime minister David Lammy
Giving the Iranians sovereignty over the strait in a way that contradicts international maritime law will be basically agreeing to be hostages to whatever radical element that wants to take over the strait at any time— Qatar's foreign ministry spokesperson Majed al-Ansari
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why would Iran ever agree to this? It sounds like they're being asked to give up leverage they've spent years building.
That's the tension at the heart of it. Some in Tehran see the Malacca model as a way to formalize their role without looking like they're capitulating to the US. It's about framing—governance versus control. But the Revolutionary Guard sees it differently. They think they won, and now they're being asked to play by rules written by others.
What's the difference between a "voluntary fee" and a toll? Doesn't it amount to the same thing if ships have to pay to pass safely?
Legally and politically, it's enormous. A toll is compulsory—you pay or you don't go. A voluntary fee is for a service. Japan pays into the Malacca mechanism because it benefits from the safety infrastructure. The idea is that shipping companies would pay for collision prevention, fire response, environmental monitoring. It's not payment for the right to exist in the strait.
But who decides what's voluntary and what's compulsory? Can't Iran just make the fee so high that it becomes compulsory in practice?
Exactly. That's why the UN maritime agency's oversight matters. And why Oman's role is crucial—they're the neutral party with actual control of the waters. But you're right to be skeptical. The whole thing depends on trust, and trust is what's been shattered by the military strikes this week.
Why is Oman so important here? They're a small country.
Geography and history. Oman controls most of the navigable waters in the strait. They've also been a mediator in the region for decades—they have relationships with both Iran and the West. And they've already done the legal work on the Malacca model. They're offering to send lawyers to Tehran to explain it. It's a way for Iran to engage without losing face.
What happens to those 800 stranded ships if this falls apart?
They stay stranded. The backlog grows. Shipping costs rise globally. Insurance premiums spike. And the sailors—thousands of them—remain trapped in a war zone. That's the human cost that doesn't make the headlines. But it's also the pressure that might eventually force a deal, because the economic pain becomes unbearable.
Is there any chance this actually works?
There's a chance. But it requires Iran to believe the US won't strike again, the US to believe Iran won't harass shipping, and both sides to accept that neither has total control. Right now, none of those conditions exist. The ceasefire is already breaking down. Until the military escalation stops, the diplomacy is just theater.