In a move that defies decades of diplomatic precedent and maritime law, President Donald Trump has signaled a willingness to enter into a “joint venture” with Iran to manage the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints. The proposal, which suggests a collaborative approach to security and potential revenue collection, comes amid a fragile two-week temporary truce between the two adversaries.
Speaking in a recent interview with ABC News, the president described the prospect of a shared management system as a “beautiful thing,” suggesting that such an arrangement would not only protect the waterway but also ensure safety from “other forces.” This unconventional approach to the Hormuz joint venture suggests that the United States may be open to participating in or legitimizing a system of transit fees—a concept that has historically been viewed as a violation of international navigation rights.
The proposal marks a sharp departure from the traditional U.S. Policy of ensuring “freedom of navigation” through military deterrence. Instead, the administration appears to be treating the strategic waterway as a commercial asset. On Truth Social, the president further emphasized the financial potential of the arrangement, stating that “considerable money will be made” as the U.S. Provides materials and maintains a presence on the ground to resolve current shipping bottlenecks.
A House Divided: Diplomatic and Internal Friction
The prospect of a U.S.-Iran partnership in the Gulf has already triggered significant alarm within the U.S. Government and among regional allies. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has pushed back against the notion of transit fees, describing Iran’s plan to collect tolls as “illegal and a dangerous idea for the entire world.”
The friction extends beyond Washington. Major Gulf powers, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), have expressed strong opposition to any framework that grants Iran formal control or financial gain from the waterway. For these nations, the Strait is a lifeline; any move to monetize its passage under an Iranian-led or shared regime is seen as a strategic surrender that could lead to severe diplomatic ruptures.
Domestically, the proposal is expected to face intense scrutiny. Critics argue that legitimizing tolls in international waters contradicts the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and other international norms regarding “transit passage,” which generally prohibit the imposition of tolls on ships passing through straits used for international navigation.
Iran’s Cryptocurrency Toll System
While the U.S. Considers a joint venture, Tehran has already begun implementing its own version of a toll regime. During the current truce, Iran has effectively asserted control over the strait by demanding payments from passing tankers via cryptocurrency.
Hamid Hosseini, a spokesperson for the Iranian Association of Oil, Gas, and Petrochemical Exporters, stated that every tanker would undergo an individual assessment before being charged. The current rate is set at $1 per barrel of crude oil, with payments required in Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies. Hosseini explained that the apply of digital assets is a strategic move to ensure that funds are not tracked or seized due to existing international sanctions.
The enforcement of these tolls is backed by severe threats. Radio warnings broadcast in English across the Gulf have informed captains that any vessel attempting to pass without official Iranian authorization “will be destroyed.” According to Hosseini, these measures are necessary to monitor all ships and prevent the movement of weapons through the strait. The revenue generated is intended for Iranian reconstruction efforts, with a portion reportedly earmarked for Oman.
The ‘Parking Lot’ Crisis: A Global Energy Bottleneck
The imposition of these tolls and the accompanying “pre-screening” process have created a logistical nightmare in the Gulf. The region has essentially become a massive maritime parking lot, with hundreds of vessels unable to exit the strait.
Current data indicates that 187 tankers, carrying an estimated 175 million barrels of crude oil and refined products, are currently idling in the Gulf. In total, between 300 and 400 ships are waiting for clearance. Because of Iran’s complex screening procedures, only 10 to 15 ships are permitted to pass per day, making it mathematically impossible to clear the backlog within the two-week truce window.
| Metric | Current Status | |
|---|---|---|
| Total Tankers Waiting | 300–400 vessels | |
| Cargo in Transit | 175 million barrels | |
| Daily Throughput | 10–15 vessels per day | |
| Toll Rate | $1 per barrel (via Cryptocurrency) |
What This Means for Global Markets
The combination of a shipping bottleneck and the introduction of “crypto-tolls” adds a modern layer of volatility to global energy prices. The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s most crucial oil transit chokepoint; any sustained disruption or the normalization of “pay-to-pass” schemes could lead to increased insurance premiums for shipping companies and higher costs for consumers worldwide.
The strategic irony of the Hormuz joint venture is that while This proves framed as a security measure, the current “screening” process has created the very instability it claims to solve. By slowing the flow of oil to a trickle, the current arrangement exerts immense pressure on global markets, giving Tehran significant leverage over both the U.S. And its Gulf neighbors.
The next critical checkpoint will be the expiration of the two-week temporary truce. Whether the administration moves forward with a formal agreement or retreats toward a more traditional security posture will depend on the level of resistance from the State Department and the ability of the U.S. To maintain its alliances in the Gulf. Official updates regarding the status of the truce and any formal “joint venture” agreements are expected following the next round of diplomatic consultations.
Do you believe a joint venture for the Strait of Hormuz is a pragmatic solution or a dangerous precedent? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
