The proposal of Donald Trump to charge 20% to ships that cross the Strait of Hormuz lasted just one day. After announcing on Monday that USA would impose that rate as compensation for ensuring security of the main oil route in the world, on Tuesday the president withdrew the measure and replaced it with a scheme of trade and investment agreements with the Gulf States. The rapid change in position fuels doubts about the consistency of its strategy towards Hormuzespecially after Washington criticized any attempt by Iran to obtain economic benefits from control of that maritime passage.

He also maintained that “The Strait of Hormuz is open to all maritime traffic, except that of Iran“, and stressed that USA will impose “a total blockade, but only on ships arriving or leaving Iranian ports, or transporting anything related to Iranian cargo.”

The Strait of Hormuz, located between Iran and Omanis a key sea route through which

On Monday, in the midst of a new military escalation, Trump announced a radical change in the US strategy for the Strait of Hormuz by proposing the collection of a fee equivalent to 20% of the value of the cargo transported by the ships that pass through it in exchange for the military protection that Washington would provide them.

According to his statements, the idea was based on The United States is allocating enormous military resources to keep the maritime passage open while other countries—especially large oil importers—benefit without assuming those costs. Trump even stated that The US would be the “guardian” or “guardian angel” of the Strait and that, for that protection, it had to be plywood.

The proposal of Trump amounted to transforming US military protection of the Strait of Ormuz in a service financed by users, an unprecedented model for a maritime route considered of international interest.

On Iran’s side, Tehran seeks to strengthen its influence over the Strait of Hormuz through total control and convert that strategic position into an instrument of political and diplomatic pressure.. Although there has been speculation about the possibility that it could impose a toll to maritime transit, until now there is no official Iranian proposal or evidence that this initiative has been incorporated into the negotiations with the United States.

On Monday, the chancellor of IranAbbas Araghchi, categorically rejected the proposal of Trump and described it as “economic extortion”. He affirmed that his country has been and will continue to be the sole guarantor and guardian of security in the Strait of Hormuz.

What does international legislation say?

Regarding the legal basis for Trump’s claim, the International Maritime Organization (IMO)a specialized agency of the United Nations, reiterated on Monday that There is no legal basis for imposing mandatory tariffs for transit through international straits. and maintained that such a measure contravenes the current legal framework on freedom of navigation.

Minentras that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea establishes that the straits used for international navigation, such as that of Hormuzare subject to the regime of “step in transit”which guarantees the continuous and expeditious circulation of ships and aircraft between one part of the sea and another. In general terms, coastal States cannot prevent such transit or impose tolls, although they can adopt measures related to safety, environmental protection and compliance with navigation regulations.

Although the United States and Iran have not ratified the Convention, Washington has maintained for decades that these provisions are part of customary international law and are therefore generally applicable.

The situation is different in the Panama and Suez canalsbecause they are not natural straits, but artificial infrastructures built and administered by a State or a competent authority. In both cases, toll collection is supported by international law and treaties.

“It was just another bravado”