Iran and Oman have advanced plans to implement a fee system for ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway that handles about 20% of the world's oil supply, despite opposition from the United States and some Gulf Arab countries. The proposal, which has drawn significant international attention, seeks to introduce maritime service fees intended to support navigation safety, pollution control, and emergency response in the strait.

Oman, traditionally a neutral party and U.S. ally, has formally presented the proposal to the United States and other Western nations. The Omani government models the plan after existing arrangements in Southeast Asia, specifically the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, where a voluntary fund managed by a private foundation collects contributions from maritime stakeholders to maintain safe passage. Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi has differentiated between direct transit tolls—which Oman officially opposes as illegal—and voluntary fees purportedly aimed at cover logistical and environmental safeguards in the waterway.

Nevertheless, Iranian officials maintain that the fees would be obligatory rather than voluntary. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi emphasized Tehran's priority to reach a joint framework with Oman but indicated Iran would proceed independently if Oman declines cooperation. Iranian leaders have framed the initiative as a natural step, arguing there is no such thing as a free service for managing such a critical shipping route. Senior Iranian advisers have asserted that the terminology—whether “tolls,” “service fees,” or “naval passage fees”—is inconsequential.

The plan marks a significant departure from the prewar status quo, when vessels transited the Strait of Hormuz freely. The February 28, 2026, U.S.-Israeli military strike on Iran and ensuing conflict led to Iran’s temporary blockade of the strait, severely disrupting global energy markets and pressing oil prices well above $100 per barrel. Since the war ceased with a U.S.-Iran peace framework signed last month, which promised open and free passage for 60 days, ongoing negotiations have sought to define the waterway’s future regulatory and operational mechanisms.

The United States, represented by officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has voiced strong opposition to any form of charge for transit, underscoring a policy to restore the strait’s preconflict status as a free international waterway. American negotiators have expressed concerns about the Omani proposal but remain engaged in technical discussions, valuing their strategic partnership with Oman. Meanwhile, European diplomats have shown displeasure at the prospect of fees yet emphasize ensuring any arrangement complies with international law, highlighting the importance of maintaining freedom of navigation.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has stated that mandatory tolls would contravene international law but indicated that voluntary funding mechanisms might be acceptable. IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Domínguez has discussed potential management frameworks with Omani officials and cited the Malacca-Singapore model as a possible precedent for the Strait of Hormuz.

The proposal has exposed divisions among regional powers. Saudi Arabia, which also relies heavily on the strait for energy exports, insists the waterway must return to its status before the conflict without new restrictions or fees. Analysts note the evolving situation places Oman in a difficult position, balancing relations with Iran and the U.S. while dealing with the strait’s urgent security and economic implications.

In sum, Iran and Oman are moving toward a contentious arrangement that could reshape the governance of one of the world’s busiest and most geopolitically sensitive maritime corridors. How international and regional stakeholders ultimately resolve the question of fees—and the freedom of navigation—remains a pivotal issue in ongoing efforts to secure lasting peace and stability in the Persian Gulf.