The International Maritime Organization (IMO) on July 10 adopted a non-binding resolution rejecting Iran’s attempt to assert unilateral control over maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, reinforcing the Gulf states’ position that the issue is governed by international navigation and maritime law rather than regional military dynamics. The IMO Council condemned Iran’s establishment of an entity purporting to regulate shipping through this critical waterway, urging member states not to recognize Iranian claims of sovereignty, jurisdiction over adjacent maritime zones, or measures restricting the internationally recognized right of transit passage.

The decision emphasized that freedom of navigation and transit passage through the Strait of Hormuz are protected under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and customary international law. It clarified that the traffic separation scheme, jointly proposed by Iran and Oman and adopted by the IMO in 1968 as a safety measure, does not confer any exclusive authority on Iran over maritime traffic.

The IMO also highlighted the humanitarian and commercial impact of instability in the Strait, noting that approximately 20,000 seafarers, port workers, and offshore personnel remain affected by ongoing tensions.

Speaking on Kuwait TV, political analysts offered insights into the broader implications of the ruling. Dr. Saleh Al-Saeedi argued that Iran’s strategy extends beyond military confrontation, aiming to reshape the regional political landscape by drawing Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states into a wider conflict. He suggested that Tehran perceives a broader regional war as beneficial to its political and negotiating position. Al-Saeedi said GCC states recognized this objective early and deliberately avoided escalating tensions to prevent being drawn into such a confrontation. He rejected the idea that the dispute centers solely on whether the Strait remains open, emphasizing instead Iran’s efforts to impose an unauthorized system to manage and supervise maritime traffic. According to Al-Saeedi, the IMO’s ruling provides Gulf states with legal and diplomatic backing to reject Iran’s unilateral claims while avoiding direct military escalation.

Political analyst Dr. Mohammed Al-Bughaili provided a complementary perspective, noting that although shipping activity through the Strait has improved, the maritime crisis persists. He pointed to Iran’s attempts to impose charges on vessels under various pretexts, including security and shipping services, as evidence that tensions remain unresolved. Al-Bughaili cautioned against describing navigation as fully safe, citing ongoing risks that increase insurance costs and compel companies and states to reconsider their transit routes. He highlighted the broader implications of ongoing instability, including disruptions to air transport that impact healthcare logistics, food supplies, trade, and economic activity across the region.

Al-Bughaili also criticized the international response to the crisis as insufficient, particularly given the Strait of Hormuz’s strategic importance for global energy markets. He contended that diplomatic negotiations alone are inadequate and called for practical measures and contingency planning to address potential future disruptions.

Despite differences in emphasis, both analysts agreed that maintaining freedom of navigation and preventing a broad regional conflict remain priorities for Kuwait and the wider GCC. They noted that the reopening of the Strait has contributed to stabilizing oil prices, easing inflationary pressures, and restoring international trade. However, they warned that any future disruption could have severe consequences not only for Gulf economies but also for Iran, Iraq, and the global economy. The IMO Council’s latest decision, they concluded, reinforces the international legal framework governing transit passage and strengthens the position of Gulf states in resisting unilateral control, while discouraging escalation into wider regional conflict.