Shipowners navigating the Strait of Hormuz are facing considerable uncertainty amid conflicting guidance from Iran, the United States, and western insurers over the safest and most compliant transit routes. The waterway, a crucial chokepoint for global oil shipments, has seen increased traffic following recent diplomatic developments, but the question of how vessels should transit remains contentious.

Iran has mandated that ships obtain permission from Tehran and follow a route close to its coastline, warning of “penalties” and the possibility of vessels being turned back if they fail to comply. In addition, Tehran has introduced new regulatory measures, including the establishment of a dedicated insurance company and the Persian Gulf Strait Authority, which recently required vessels to register and sign up for Iranian insurance policies—currently offered free but expected to become chargeable after 60 days. Iranian officials have framed these requirements as efforts to assert sovereignty and manage risks in the strait, though many international observers question their legality under maritime law, which generally prohibits tolls solely for passage.

Western governments and insurers, by contrast, have advised ships to use a route on the Omani side of the strait, which is under the protection of US military air cover. The US introduced a “Guardian Angel” corridor this month to facilitate safer passage, and western maritime authorities have reduced the risk level for operating in the area from “severe” to “moderate” after a recently signed memorandum of understanding between Tehran and Washington set the stage for further negotiations aimed at ending hostilities.

Shipowners and operators now find themselves caught between these contradictory instructions. Following Iranian directives risks sanctions-related complications and falling foul of US regulations, while adhering to US and insurer advice exposes vessels to potential interference or detention by Iranian forces. Insurers are wary of underwriting voyages through Iranian-designated routes, while maritime businesses face operational dilemmas due to uncertainty about compliance and safety.

The international legal status of Iran’s new procedures remains a subject of debate. Experts argue that while charging for services such as tugging might be lawful, fees equated to tolls on mere passage through an international strait would contravene established principles of freedom of navigation under international law. Iran’s moves have drawn criticism for potentially setting a precedent that could undermine this principle and for complicating an already volatile security and commercial environment.

The US Treasury Department has imposed sanctions on the Persian Gulf Strait Authority, describing it as a mechanism through which Iran seeks to extract payments from vessels under the guise of insurance, warning that payments to the authority could result in penalties. Meanwhile, Iran remains subject to multiple international sanctions, further complicating vessels’ decisions about compliance and risk management.

Since the outbreak of conflict in late February, traffic through the strait has fluctuated, but recent days have seen over 30 vessels transiting within a 24-hour period—the highest since hostilities escalated. Maritime authorities have noted that the behavior of Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces has become less volatile, and the continued US naval presence is seen as a stabilizing factor.

Despite these developments, the container remains mixed and confusing, with shipping experts characterizing the situation as unprecedented. Vessels, insurers, and regulators continue to balance concerns about safety, legal compliance, and operational efficiency amid evolving geopolitical dynamics in one of the world’s most strategically significant maritime corridors.