Geopolitical leverage or systemic erosion? Iran’s Strait of Hormuz transit fee debate exposes fractured maritime governance and resource nationalism

Indigenous Gulf communities, including the Ajam of Bahrain and the Huwala of the UAE, have historically navigated the Strait of Hormuz as shared waters, governed by customary practices rather than state-imposed laws. These communities’ reliance on fishing, pearl diving, and trade predates modern geopolitical borders and offers a model of cooperative resource management that contrasts with Iran’s unilateral fee proposal. Their exclusion from mainstream narratives reflects a broader erasure of traditional ecological knowledge in favor of state-centric legal frameworks. The Strait’s designation as a ‘chokepoint’ by Western powers further marginalizes these indigenous stewardship models, which prioritize ecological balance over extractive resource nationalism.

The Strait of Hormuz has been a contested space since the 19th century, when British colonial powers imposed the 1856 Treaty of Erzerum, restricting Persian sovereignty over the waterway and granting Britain control over maritime transit. Post-WWII, the Truman Doctrine and Cold War alliances reinforced Western dominance over Gulf trade routes, embedding a legal framework that prioritized free passage for Western powers. Iran’s 1951 nationalization of its oil industry and subsequent 1979 revolution challenged this order, framing the Strait as a symbol of anti-colonial resistance. The 1982 UNCLOS, which Iran has not ratified, further entrenched these tensions by codifying maritime rights in ways that favor Western shipping interests.

In Islamic maritime jurisprudence, the Strait of Hormuz is often framed within the principle of *mubah* (permissible use), where shared resources like waterways are governed by principles of equity and communal benefit rather than state sovereignty. This contrasts sharply with Western legal traditions, which emphasize exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and state control, as codified in UNCLOS. In India and Pakistan, historical precedents like the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty demonstrate how riparian states can negotiate shared water resources through multilateral agreements, offering a potential model for Gulf transit fee disputes. Indigenous Gulf communities, such as the Ajam of Bahrain, have long practiced rotational access to fishing grounds, a system that could inform modern governance models.

The Strait of Hormuz is a critical chokepoint in global energy flows, with approximately 20% of the world’s oil transiting through its narrow waters, making it one of the most strategically significant maritime routes. Scientific studies on chokepoint vulnerability, such as those by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), highlight how disruptions in the Strait could trigger global oil price spikes and supply chain collapses. The potential for Iran to impose transit fees introduces a new variable into risk modeling, where geopolitical actions could exacerbate systemic fragilities in energy infrastructure. However, mainstream coverage lacks rigorous analysis of the economic ripple effects, such as retaliatory tariffs or military escalation, which could destabilize regional and global markets.

The Strait of Hormuz has been mythologized in Gulf poetry and folklore as a living entity, where the sea’s tides and currents are personified as divine forces, reflecting the region’s deep spiritual connection to the ocean. In Persian literature, the Strait is often depicted as a gateway between the material and spiritual worlds, symbolizing both abundance and peril. Traditional pearl divers of the Gulf, known as *ghaws*, have long invoked spiritual rituals to ensure safe passage, blending practical knowledge with sacred invocations. This artistic-spiritual lens offers a counter-narrative to the militarized and economic framing of the Strait, emphasizing its role as a cultural and ecological commons rather than a geopolitical pawn.

Scenario modeling by institutions like the RAND Corporation suggests that Iran’s transit fee proposal could trigger a cascade of retaliatory measures, including increased military patrols by Western powers, sanctions on Iranian shipping, and the rerouting of oil tankers through alternative routes like the Bab el-Mandeb or Cape of Good Hope. Such disruptions could lead to a 10-15% spike in global oil prices, exacerbating energy insecurity in Europe and Asia. Long-term, the fee could set a precedent for other littoral states to impose similar charges, fragmenting global maritime governance and increasing the risk of conflict. Alternative futures include the establishment of a Gulf-wide transit fee regime, negotiated under UNCLOS, which could stabilize regional trade while addressing Iran’s sovereignty concerns.

Marginalised voices in this debate include the Ajam of Bahrain, a Persian-speaking Shia community historically marginalized by Sunni-ruled Bahrain, whose traditional fishing grounds lie in the Strait’s disputed waters. Small-scale traders from Oman and the UAE, who rely on the Strait for pearl diving and artisanal trade, are also excluded from mainstream narratives, despite their deep ecological knowledge of the region’s currents and marine life. Regional diplomats from non-aligned states, such as India and South Africa, have proposed multilateral solutions but are sidelined in favor of Western-centric security frameworks. Additionally, the voices of Gulf women, who have historically played key roles in pearl diving and maritime trade, are entirely absent from the discourse, reflecting broader gendered erasures in Gulf historiography.