Iran leverages Strait of Hormuz transit fees to reshape regional energy geopolitics amid US naval dominance
Original framing: “Iran floats insurance fees and asserts control over Hormuz” — South China Morning Post
The Strait has been contested since antiquity, from Persian naval dominance under the Achaemenids to Portuguese control in the 16th century and British imperial policing in the 19th. Iran’s 1979 revolution revived historical claims to the Strait, framing it as a 'Persian Gulf' under sovereign control—a narrative that predates US naval presence. The 1980s 'Tanker War' during the Iran-Iraq conflict established precedents for transit fees as a tool of asymmetric warfare.
The Strait of Hormuz crisis is a microcosm of how post-colonial states weaponize maritime sovereignty to counter asymmetric power structures, a pattern rooted in the 1979 Iranian revolution and the 1980s Tanker War.
Iran’s transit fees are not merely a tactical move but a strategic reassertion of control over a corridor that has been contested since the Achaemenid Empire, where Western legal frameworks (e.g., UNCLOS) collide with Islamic jurisprudence and indigenous customary rights. The US response—naval patrols and sanctions—reproduces the same imperial logics that Iran seeks to dismantle, while marginalized voices (Baloch fishermen, Yemeni traders) bear the brunt of this geopolitical theater. A systemic solution requires moving beyond zero-sum models: regional funds that monetize transit for collective benefit, treaties that recognize indigenous rights, and de-escalation mechanisms that treat the Strait as a shared commons rather than a battleground. The trickster’s lesson is clear—rigid control over fluid spaces is an illusion, and the future lies in adaptive, plural governance.