Iran Insists on Permanent Control of Hormuz, Will Resort to Force if Necessary
N.R. Finch
Iran demands formal international recognition of its authority over the Strait of Hormuz and says it will use force if needed — the waterway carried roughly one-fifth of global energy shipments before the war, and any permanent toll or blockade regime would reprice oil and shipping costs worldwide.
What exactly does Iran want?
Three core demands: sole authority over which ships enter and how, the right to deny passage to vessels deemed a security threat, and mandatory fees for transit.
This means → Tehran is not bargaining for leverage — it wants permanent administrative control of the strait, from access decisions to routing to pricing.
Its negotiators have drawn a red line: no progress on any other peace topic with Washington until Hormuz control is settled.
The 60-day interim deal — do both sides read it the same way?
On June 17 the U.S. and Iran signed an interim memorandum: Iran agreed to let ships pass toll-free for 60 days.
Iran's reading diverges sharply from Washington's: Tehran says it retains full authority over all transiting vessels during the free-passage window — including route approval and access decisions — with no obligation to consult Gulf states.
The U.S. position is the opposite. Trump said no toll would be imposed "unless Washington decides otherwise"; Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Gulf counterparts that no country has the right to blockade an international waterway or charge passage fees.
In plain terms = one document, two incompatible interpretations. When the 60 days expire, a collision is the most likely outcome.
Why is Iran pushing this now?
A senior Iranian official told Reuters that after surviving wars with the U.S. and Israel, Tehran sees a "historic opportunity" to lock in long-term strategic advantage.
The logic: rising dispute costs → shipping nations eventually accept Iranian management of the strait → Washington concedes to keep global energy flowing.
This reflects a deliberate conversion of military survival into geopolitical bargaining capital — "we fought and were not destroyed" is itself the basis for the demand.
Has force already been used?
Last weekend four vessels tried to transit on the Omani side without Iranian clearance. Iran opened fire to intercept them.
A brief but intense exchange of fire between U.S. and Iranian forces followed — the first armed confrontation since the interim deal was signed.
This means → the 60-day "cooling-off period" is not cool at all. Iran is enforcing its claimed authority in real time, not waiting for it to be negotiated.
Could Iran be overplaying its hand?
Ali Ansari, professor of modern history at the University of St Andrews, warns that Iran may be overestimating Washington's willingness to concede.
His assessment: "The chances of this conflict reigniting are far higher than people assume, because neither side believes it lost."
In plain terms = both sides think they won the last round, and that is precisely the most dangerous setup — neither has the psychological basis to back down.
What does this mean for global markets?
Before the war the Strait of Hormuz carried roughly one-fifth of the world's energy shipments — it is the chokepoint for Middle Eastern crude exports.
If the interim deal expires in mid-August and Iran resumes tolling, global shipping costs and energy prices face a direct hit — Tehran has not yet disclosed rates or methods, and the uncertainty itself is a risk premium.
This means → even without a full-scale conflict, the mere expectation of a permanent toll regime is enough to push up oil prices and marine insurance rates.
Content is for reference only, not financial advice.