Iran's Plan to Impose a 'Transit Toll' in the Strait of Hormuz Sends Oil Prices Soaring

JAKARTA - Iran's threat to control and impose a transit toll or passage fee in the Strait of Hormuz has sent shockwaves through the global energy market. Amid ongoing diplomatic efforts between the United States and Iran, Tehran's proposal for a 'navigational fee' in the world's most strategic waterway has triggered a surge in oil volatility and new concerns about international navigation.

A CNBC report on May 26, 2026, mentioned that Brent crude oil prices had spiked following speculation that Iran could demand a transit toll from ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz as part of a diplomatic deal with the US.

Dave Ernsberger, head of S&P Global Energy, said that the market was in a state of uncertainty due to conflicting signals from Washington and Tehran. “People are afraid to take a position,” he said, describing the caution of market players.

Iran's statement came in response to a comment by Esmail Baghaei, a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, who stated that although there is no official tariff, the preservation of the ecosystem of the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, and Oman has a cost. CNBC mentioned that one of the options being discussed was the joint management of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran and Oman with a scheme of environmental tolls or transit fees for ships.

The Strait of Hormuz is the world's energy artery. Approximately 20% of global marine oil and LNG trade passes through the narrow route between Iran and Oman. Therefore, any threats to disrupt traffic has a direct impact on the energy market and international trade.

However, until the latest developments, the big question raised is: has the US already lost at the Strait of Hormuz and the world bent a knee to the IRGC? The answer is more complex. A Reuters investigation on May 20, 2026, found that Iran has indeed been able to exert de facto control over the Strait of Hormuz through a layered system governing navigation, including ship verification, route allocation, and suspected payment for safe passage.

Reuters reported that some ships even paid up to $150,000 to ensure safe passage. Countries with good relations with Tehran, such as China, Russia, India, and Pakistan, were reportedly given priority in the system.

Iran has leveraged a combination of shore-based missiles, drones, sea mines, and fast IRGC boats to increase the risk of navigation. Consequently, thousands of ships were grounded in the Persian Gulf, and maritime traffic plummeted dramatically from its normal levels. Reuters even described the conflict over Hormuz as one of the worst energy crises in modern history.

However, de facto control is not identical to total geopolitical triumph. The US has maintained its blockade of Iranian ports and commercial ship escort operations. Washington has also launched attacks on IRGC drones, missiles, and small ships thought to be threatening international shipping.

A Reuters report stated that Iran could have “losed effectively” the Hormuz route through its military threats, but the US continued to maintain its counter-blockade operations and maritime presence in the region. In other words, the situation at the Hormuz is more akin to a strategic standoff than a one-sided victory.

An outright rejection of the Strait of Hormuz toll also came from many parties, not just the US and China. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio firmly stated that any system to impose tolls would make the diplomatic agreement with Iran “unfeasible.” Rubio considered the tolling system at Hormuz contrary to international law and the principle of global navigation freedom.

Interestingly, China's position also garnered support from this US position. Reuters reported that senior US and Chinese officials had reached a point of agreement that no country should collect a transit fee at the Strait of Hormuz. This unified stance among two world powers shows that the international community still regards navigation freedom as a principle that cannot be negotiated.

Ernsberger from S&P Global Energy said the real issue is not the value of the toll, which is estimated at around $1 per barrel, but rather its geopolitical implications. “What's at stake is the principle of freedom of maritime traffic,” he said to CNBC.

Until May 27, 2026, traffic at the Strait of Hormuz remained severely restricted. According to maritime data and reports from Reuters and the Wall Street Journal, only a small fraction of ships passed through, with some even disabling their AIS tracking systems to avoid the threat of attack. The IRGC continued intense naval patrols, while global shipping confidence remained shaken. However, diplomacy had not been lost.

Reuters reported that Iran and the US were currently discussing an initial draft agreement that could gradually open up the Strait of Hormuz to pre-war traffic levels within about a month. This framework included reopening commercial shipping, joint Iranian-Oman maritime traffic management, and US withdrawal of some military pressure in the region.

Given this situation, the narrative that the US has lost totally or the world has bent a knee to the IRGC is premature and not supported by field evidence. Instead, the IRGC demonstrated its strong asymmetric capabilities to disrupt global energy routes, while the US and its allies maintained their military, diplomatic, and economic capabilities to resist Iran's dominance.

The Strait of Hormuz is thus no longer a symbol of one side's triumph but an arena of endurance, legitimacy, and diplomacy with uncertain outcomes. Oil prices, financial markets, and global energy stability will continue to move in response to developments in this sensitive waterway.