On Monday, July 13, US President Donald Trump announced that the Strait of Hormuz is going to remain open, while simultaneously appointing the United States as its sole guardian. In a striking move, he conveyed that countries will be required to pay “20 per cent on all cargo shipped” to traverse this critical maritime route.

Alongside this financial mandate, Trump stated that American forces will reinstate their military blockade of Iranian ports located near the waterway. With both sides actively contending for ultimate authority over the strait, these actions are leading to a swift resurgence of tensions in the region, even after multiple diplomatic initiatives had been made to work out a peace settlement.

“The Hormuz Strait is open and will remain open with or without Iran. We are reinstating the Iranian blockade, so named because it is only stopping Iran’s ships or customers from entering or leaving,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, explicitly declaring the United States as “the guardian of the Hormuz Strait.”

In the same public statement, he mentioned that all other nations would retain the right to utilize the passage freely and justly. However, he clarified that this access would only be granted after Washington is “reimbursed at a rate of 20% on all cargo shipped for any and all expenses incurred in ensuring safety and security in this highly unstable region of the world.”

Trump referred to this sweeping new requirement as a “matter of fairness” due to the self-proclaimed designation of his country as the region's protector. “The process and formation will begin immediately,” he added. Following the announcement, the US Central Command informed the public that the blockade would officially resume on Tuesday at 4 pm Eastern Time (ET). This marks a total turnaround of Washington’s long-standing policy, which previously held that the strait should remain entirely open, just as it was before the initial eruption of the fighting.

Iran Responds to the White House Statement

Notably, the Trump administration previously underscored that such monetary conditions cannot be enforced on international corridors, making these new demands directly contradictory to their own past statements. Furthermore, Iran had recently faced severe international backlash for allegedly imposing its own fees on the strait, as it was reported to be charging up to $2 million per tanker.

However, this latest development from Washington offered a prime opportunity for the Islamic Republic to justify its own demands under the guise of compensation. It also allowed Tehran to project itself as the real guardian of the strait that deserved the payment.

It is important to remember that shipping containers were able to move through this vital area without encountering any of these financial issues prior to the dispute. In those days, commercial vessels were not forced to cough up specific amounts of money just to access the passageway. Today, however, both parties are presently attempting to make other nations bear the direct cost of their bitter enmity.

“POTUS is absolutely right. Whoever provides secure and safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz should be compensated for this service. Iran has always been the guardian of the strait and will remain so forever,” retaliated Seyed Abbas Araghchi, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran. He mocked the American proposal by adding that a 20% fee is “too much” and promised that the Iranian regime will be “fair” while slapping a similar tax on the vessels.

The U-Turn by Washington and the Insistence from Tehran

This sudden shift in policy directly clashes with what top American officials were promising just weeks ago. “No country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway. That’s existing international law. That’s the way it is in international waterways all over the world, and that’s the way we expect it’ll be here,” United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated during a recent official visit to the Middle East.

Following his speech at a meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council—a coalition of oil-exporting Gulf Arab states—the US signed a joint statement affirming that the participating countries “rejected any tolls, fees or attempts to assert control over the strait.”“We believe international waterways should be free of tolls,” emphasized Vice President JD Vance while discussions were actively underway last month regarding a ceasefire agreement with Iran that aimed to reopen the crucial maritime route.

However, the Iranian government, which has been unwavering in its demand for payments following the conflict’s outbreak, has consistently leveraged its strategic position. According to Iran’s parliament speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the situation cannot simply revert to what it was before the war. He maintained that service fees would be collected for navigation support, environmental protection, insurance coordination, and maritime safety operations during the cessation of hostilities. This stance was even included in the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that formally established the truce to allow for talks on a comprehensive peace arrangement.

On the other hand, six days after Trump signed that very accord, he stressed, “There will be no toll in the Hormuz Strait for 60 days during the cease fire period, and there will be no tolls after the 60 day period has expired, unless they are imposed by and for the United States of America, should the deal not be completed, for services rendered as the Guardian Angel to the countries of the Middle East for purposes of both past, present and future reimbursement of costs.”

The transit avenue, which was originally functional, relatively secure, and freely accessible, was first converted into a toll plaza by Iran, which began to target ships for not adhering to its mandates after the US attacked the country. Now, a remarkably similar intention has been articulated by Trump, after he spent months criticizing the Islamic regime for the exact same action. However, Trump’s statement is unsurprising in light of his history of policy inconsistencies.

How the Objective of the War Went from 'Defeating Iran' to 'Keeping the Strait Open'

Meanwhile, the original objectives set by the USA and Israel that sparked the confrontation in the first place have completely receded into the background. The conflict initially revolved around dismantling Tehran’s nuclear capabilities, eliminating its ballistic missile and naval arsenals, curbing regional proxy influence, and ousting its hardline government. Now, the entire focus has shifted to controlling the physical strait and seeking funds from countries that want to use it.

The US has been unsuccessful in achieving any of its original goals while the face-off persists, and Iran continues to hold its ground, much to Trump’s chagrin. More importantly, commercial shipping has been severely jeopardized in one of the most prominent trade corridors in the world. The global energy supply chain remains heavily disrupted, with fuel prices remaining erratically high across the globe. It is apparent that these damaging economic events would not have occurred without the existing military tensions in West Asia.

Furthermore, the US is set to reintroduce a blockade on Iranian ports as a countermeasure to Iran’s alleged blockade of the strait. This means both nations are likely to again engage in direct attacks on ships that fail to follow their competing directives, thereby putting seafarers' lives and global trade at a much greater risk. Indian seafarers have particularly borne the brunt of these violent strikes.

In a recent escalation, an Indian crew member lost his life and eight others—including six Indians and two Ukrainians—sustained injuries after two UAE-flagged tankers were hit by Iranian cruise missiles in the strait, within Omani waters. The impact of this violent struggle clearly extends far beyond its original political scope, deeply affecting innocent persons who find themselves caught in the crossfire.

The maritime blockade enacted by both the US and Iran is evidently a two-edged sword for commercial ships and their occupants. Additionally, it would not be inaccurate to assert that Trump, who failed to fulfill his primary strategic aims in Iran, has now given the Islamic regime a legitimate basis to defend the obligatory charges they impose on unfriendly countries. By making these recent remarks, Trump has inadvertently validated the concept of charging for passage, ensuring the route takes center stage in these intensifying altercations with no relief in sight for energy-dependent economies.

Ironically, the global community will be compelled to confront these severe challenges stemming from a pivotal waterway that was once easily available without any diplomatic, financial, or military complications before the US military offensive against Iran began. In simpler terms, regardless of which country is making the demand, it is extortion masked as a safety and service fee.