Iran and Oman push ahead with Strait of Hormuz fees despite US objections - report
Oman has delivered a formal proposal to Washington for voluntary shipping service fees in the strait, but Iran says the payments should be obligatory
Iran and US-allied Oman are moving forward with plans to collect transit fees from ships traveling through the Strait of Hormuz, despite public American objections. This is according to an Iranian official and four diplomats who spoke with the New York Times. Oman recently delivered a formal proposal to the US and other Western allies outlining a plan under which shipping companies would pay service fees to use the strait. The proposal mentions voluntary fees rather than a mandatory toll, though the Iranian official said payments would be obligatory.
Before the war, vessels sailed through the Strait of Hormuz free of charge, but since then, Iran has repeatedly declared its intention to monetize the strait.
The US-Iran framework agreement signed this month stipulated that the strait would remain open with "no charge" for 60 days while negotiations continued. Trump called the idea of collecting fees "unacceptable" as recently as last week, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the US would oppose monetization regardless of whether it was called "a fee or a toll or a donation."
A person familiar with the US position said American negotiators had received Oman's proposal and were confident differences could be resolved at the technical level.
Oman's proposal is partly modeled on arrangements in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, where a private Japanese foundation manages voluntary contributions for safe navigation. Oman's FM Badr al-Busaidi has rejected transit fees as illegal but has distinguished between "transit fees" and fees for services provided by countries along the strait.
Iran's deputy FM Kazem Gharibabadi said Tehran's priority was an agreement with Oman, but that Iran would proceed independently if needed.
Saudi Arabia's FM Prince Faisal bin Farhan said the strait "must return to the status quo before the war," asking, "Why should we now, as a result of a conflict, accept some novel arrangement that is going to be imposed on it?"