Iran Establishes Dedicated Insurance Firm, Effectively Imposing Tolls on Strait of Hormuz
Alina Collins
Iran has launched a mandatory insurance company for the Strait of Hormuz, with a 60-day free window that mirrors the U.S.–Iran ceasefire timeline — shipping experts warn this is a toll by another name, one that sidesteps the existing memorandum of understanding.
What exactly has Iran done?
Mousa Rezaei, head of Iran's insurance regulator, announced Sunday that a new insurer dedicated to the Strait of Hormuz is now operational.
Iran's "Persian Gulf Strait Authority," created in May, had already required transiting vessels to register and buy mandatory Iranian insurance — currently free for 60 days.
This means → Iran is using a two-step playbook — administrative registration, then insurance — to pull the strait's control framework under its own authority.
Why does the 60-day free period matter?
The 60-day window aligns precisely with the initial U.S.–Iran ceasefire term and its guarantee of free passage.
Lloyd's List editor-in-chief Richard Meade said the insurance requirement "effectively sidesteps" the U.S.–Iran memorandum of understanding, paving the way for future charges.
In plain terms = the free period is a foot in the door — once the ceasefire window closes, "insurance" can become a toll. Meade's words: "This is essentially a transit fee by another name."
What does international law say?
An IMO spokesperson told the New York Times the requirement was never formally submitted to the IMO and falls outside any official process.
She stressed that transit rights "may not be suspended or hampered" by a coastal state, and that international law provides no established basis for mandatory transit fees.
Maritime lawyers added that labeling the charge a "service fee" is not enough — international law permits fees only for tangible services such as towage or waste disposal, not for mere passage.
"The insurer created the risk itself" — what does that mean?
Maritime historian Salvatore Mercogliano compared the insurance to a mafia protection racket, or "the person who controls the dam gates selling flood insurance."
This reflects a core contradiction: the risks the policy covers — attacks on vessels, crew detention — are risks Iran itself created by retaliating against commercial ships after the February U.S.–Israeli strikes.
Put simply = start the fire, then sell the extinguisher — that is the logic critics see behind Iran's scheme.
What comes next?
Mercogliano's summary: Iran's strategy is to "weaponize" the strait first, making normal commerce untenable, then charge for "protection."
Meade described the situation in one line: "We are in uncharted waters."
This means → whether Iran can convert this mechanism into an actual fee after the 60-day window expires will be the key test of whether the U.S.–Iran peace framework holds.
Content is for reference only, not financial advice.