The situation in the Strait of Hormuz remains tense: reciprocal restrictions and verbal statements about negotiations do not lower the intensity of the conflict. U.S. President Donald Trump unexpectedly said there are “serious negotiations” with Tehran and reported that he postponed a previously planned strike on Iran — “for a short time or perhaps forever.” However, these peaceful notes come against the backdrop of real naval maneuvers and growing diplomatic tension, which only increases uncertainty about the fate of this key sea route.
According to satellite monitoring and analysis, the U.S. Navy, through Central Command, is effectively blocking Iranian ports: about 20 U.S. ships are deployed in the Arabian Sea, including two aircraft carriers. In response Iran — through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — continues to restrict the passage of vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, allowing them only under its own procedures. A constant field of friction is emerging, where each side tries to establish its own rules of engagement.
Tehran has officially announced the introduction of transit fees: ships will pass via a new route set by the Guard and will be required to pay for the services. The head of the Iranian parliament’s National Security Committee clarified that this concerns not only navigation, but also possible insurance, repairs and even refueling. Thus, Iran is trying to create an administrative and commercial infrastructure for full control over shipping in the strait.
Qatar strongly opposed such actions: Foreign Ministry spokesman Majid al-Ansari said that “no country, including Iran, has the right to block or hinder passage through the Strait of Hormuz.” Strategic and maritime affairs expert Lieutenant General Mohammed Abdel Wahid described the current confrontation as a new form of maritime warfare — with drones, mines and unconventional tactics, where no one has full control.
According to an analyst, neither the U.S. nor Iran is capable of unilaterally controlling the strait: Washington’s “freedom project” has failed, and Iranian attempts to charge fees and set rules are only circumventions. He called Trump’s statement about postponing the strike part of a “strategic deception,” noting that there are no signs of inevitable escalation. However, State Department spokesman Tommy Bigot stressed that “Washington’s red lines are clear,” and the postponement of the strike was the result of regional consultations. While both sides continue pressure and maneuvers, the situation remains explosive — any slip in delicate diplomacy could lead to a full-scale crisis.
Commentary on the news
What role does the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) play in Iran’s economy and politics, and why is the IRGC controlling shipping in the Strait of Hormuz rather than the regular navy?
The IRGC is a key player in Iran’s political and economic life, combining military, ideological and commercial functions. It controls a significant portion of the economy, including construction, energy, banking and trade, making it effectively a state within a state. Control over the Strait of Hormuz is assigned to the IRGC, especially its naval forces (“Sepah”), because of their direct subordination to the Supreme Leader and their special role in defending the Islamic Revolution. Iran’s regular navy (Artesh) is considered more traditional and less ideologically driven, whereas the IRGC operates more flexibly and asymmetrically, which is important for strategic operations in the strait. In addition, the IRGC is actively involved in the shadow economy and smuggling, which ties its economic interests to control over transport routes.What powers does the parliamentary National Security Committee have, and how do its statements influence policy formation on issues like control of the strait?
The National Security and Foreign Policy Committee of the Iranian Parliament (Majlis) has broad powers: it reviews bills related to defense, intelligence, the nuclear program and international relations, and oversees the activities of the government and security forces in these areas. Its statements often serve as an indicator of sentiments within the political establishment, but they do not have direct executive force in operational matters. On control of the strait, the committee can express the position of conservative factions, increasing pressure on the government or the IRGC, but final decisions are made by the Supreme Leader and the Expediency Discernment Council. Nevertheless, the committee’s rhetoric can form the propagandistic basis for Iran’s actions, presenting them as “the will of the people.”Have there been precedents when Iran imposed fees for passage through the Strait of Hormuz or unilaterally set shipping rules, and how did international actors react?
Iran has not imposed an official toll for passage, but it has repeatedly threatened to close the strait or demand “escort” by the IRGC, which de facto meant restrictions. In 2018–2019 Iran detained tankers and introduced new rules for ships (for example, requiring notification of movements), citing “environmental” and “security” reasons. The international community reacted sharply: the U.S. deployed warships to protect shipping, and the European Union condemned Iran’s actions as violations of international maritime law. In 2012, during earlier sanctions, Iran demanded “permission” for vessels to transit but did not introduce direct fees. International actors (the U.S., the UK, Japan) regarded these steps as escalation and increased naval patrols, creating a coalition to protect freedom of navigation. Iran ultimately backed down, avoiding direct confrontation due to the risk of military response.
Full version: خبير بالأمن البحري: لا أحد يسيطر على هرمز وترمب يمارس الخداع الإستراتيجي