The Iranian Revolutionary Guards want to make money with a toll on the contested waterway. It is still unclear whether the USA can prevent this.
June 29, 2026, 02:02June 29, 2026, 02:02
Michael Wrase, Limassol / ch media
Oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz: Iran demands money for passage.Image: Elke Scholiers / Getty
The US Air Force responded to the Iranian shelling of a freighter in the Strait of Hormuz over the weekend with attacks on Iranian radar systems, drone depots and minelaying capacities. A short time later, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) confirmed retaliatory strikes on US bases in Bahrain and Kuwait.
The latest spiral of violence was triggered on Thursday by an Iranian drone attack on the Panamanian-flagged tanker “Kiku”. US President Donald Trump called the attack a “foolish violation” of the agreement. Tehran, for its part, accuses Washington of breaching the “Memorandum of Understanding”.
The background to the escalation of violence is a dispute that has been simmering for weeks over possible tolls in the Strait of Hormuz. At the heart of this is a point that is often misunderstood: the memorandum signed on the Bürgenstock does not fundamentally prohibit fees – it only limits them.
According to Article 5 of the treaty, Iran must “use its best efforts to ensure the safe passage of commercial vessels: with no fee for only 60 days.” The text leaves open what applies after this period has expired. And that is exactly the point of contention: Trump insists that the waterway must remain permanently toll-free; Iran has never publicly committed to this.
The Islamic Republic refers to Article 5 in the MoU, in which Iran, together with Oman, is required to “conduct a dialogue on the future administration and maritime services in the strait” – a formulation that, from Tehran’s perspective, can certainly be read as a door for a later fee system.
Fees for transit are not permitted
According to experts, the legal situation is clear: the UNCLOS Convention on the Law of the Sea prohibits neighboring states from charging fees for transit alone; Only taxes for specifically provided, non-discriminatory services such as pilot assistance are permitted.
According to Israeli military historian and intelligence expert Lynette Nusbacher, Iran wants to rename tolls as a “navigation service.” Tehran primarily wants to use the proceeds to compensate for economic damage caused by the war, said Nusbacher in the “Jerusalem Post”. In addition, control of the waterway remains an instrument to ensure the continued existence of the regime.
The Israeli intelligence expert’s reference to the negotiation mechanism behind it is particularly revealing: The Iranians have already indicated that they would relax their demands for reparations if they could ask shipping companies to pay in return – or reduce the fee if they received additional billions from the Americans. The toll is therefore less an end in itself than a bargaining chip in a larger game of sanctions and property poker.
Monetizing the Strait for Iran’s Terror
The US Treasury Department is also treating the matter not as a technical dispute, but as a security issue. It described Iran’s newly created “Persian Gulf Strait Authority” as an attempt by the Revolutionary Guards to “monetize” its terror campaign by blackmailing passing ships. Finance Minister Scott Bessent announced that any actor involved in toll collection would be aggressively sanctioned – including the Sultanate of Oman.
In an analysis published by the Jerusalem Post, Iran expert Trita Parsi interprets a joint statement by Oman and Iran on the future management of the waterway as an attempt to make this issue a “regional issue” rather than a purely Iranian-Omani one.
In the medium term, however, those smaller Gulf states that do not have alternative routes could be forced to bow to Iranian demands, writes Steven Cook from the Council on Foreign Relations. The conflict will likely lead to additional security for the Gulf states in the form of non-aggression pacts with Iran. (schweiztoday.ch)