‘Piracy’: Will Trump’s 20% of Hormuz find takers? | | Articles of Controversy

Amid the new escalation between the United States and Iran, President Donald Trump says the US will resume its blockade of Iran and “be in charge” of the Strait of Hormuz.

Mr Trump added that the US would impose a 20 percent tariff on ships that pass through the river.

Here’s a closer look at what Trump said and what it could mean for ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

What did Trump say?

Trump revealed his plans for the Strait of Hormuz in an interview with Fox News and in a post on his Truth Social page on Monday.

“We are reinstating the IRANIAN BLOCKADE, so named because it simply stops Iranian ships or customers from entering or leaving,” Trump wrote.

The US Navy’s ⁠Joint Maritime ⁠Information Center later added that the blockade would begin at 20:00 GMT on Tuesday.

“The United States, from now on, is known as the ‘GUARDIAN OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT’,” Mr. Trump added, “but in this way, and for the sake of FAIRNESS, it will be reimbursed, at the rate of 20% of all goods exported, for any cost necessary to carry out the work of providing security and protection to an immovable part of the World.”

“Strategy and design will begin immediately,” he said.

But Andreas Krieg, senior lecturer at the School of Defense at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera that Trump’s latest comment “seems more like a political comment than a development policy”.

“This shows President Trump’s desire to show that he still has power and options, even though Washington’s room for control has been greatly reduced,” Krieg said. “The problem is that the idea doesn’t fully understand what the dispute about the Strait of Hormuz has become. This is no longer about making money, but about control, prestige and who sets the rules of the most important waterway in the Gulf.”

Will Trump’s proposal work?

Krieg said, in practice, he doesn’t see the 20 percent U.S. mandate working.

He added that Washington “does not have an official system to prosecute international vessels, nor does it control the waterways”.

“More importantly, bringing the migrants to America would inadvertently confirm Iran’s claim that the passage of Hormuz is something that can be legitimately paid for.” “Washington has been saying for weeks that freedom of navigation is a principle under international law,” Krieg said.

“If they suddenly start talking about paying for themselves, they reduce their legal and political responsibilities while reinforcing Tehran’s case that control of Hormuz comes with the right to pay a fee.”

What would this mean for ships trying to pass through the strait?

Krieg explained that commercial shipping companies go after anyone who can affect their ability to sail.

“They are not choosing between American interests and Iranian interests for commercial reasons. They are making dangerous calculations using insurance, security and continuity of operations,” he said.

He added: “If Iran continues to rule by force, the shipping industry will agree to that regardless of what Washington announces from the White House.”

Before the war, most of the traders in the Strait of Hormuz followed the established routes that run through the middle of the strait.

Now, the ships are faced with a difficult choice: If they approach the Omani side of the strait, they are at risk of being seized by Iran, and if they get too close to Iranian waters in line with Iran, they are at risk of being accused of violating Trump’s blockade and could face US sanctions.

Krieg said Trump’s decision would create greater uncertainty for ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

“Shipping companies are already facing opposition from insurers, maritime authorities and regional governments,” he said. “Increasing the political risk to America without any international legal framework would create legal and commercial uncertainty.

What does international law say about water transport charges?

Arsenio Dominguez, Secretary General of the United Nations Maritime Organization, International Maritime Organization (IMO), he told Al Jazeera in April that the introduction of tolls on waterways is against international law.

“States do not have the right to bring charges or fees or charges in these cases,” Dominguez said.

“Initiating any charges is against international law,” he said.

In a statement on Monday, the IMO said it rejects the imposition of any fines to cross the route.

“We have always been consistent with our actions on tolls. The IMO is strongly opposed to the imposition of fines for crossing the barriers used in international travel,” the agency said.

“There is no legitimate basis for setting up tolls just to go through the motions.”

In June, Trump’s secretary of state and national security adviser, Marco Rubio, rejected the idea of ​​any country charging fees for transiting international waters.

“No country is allowed to levy tolls or fines on a shipping lane around the world. That’s international law,” Rubio said at the time in response to Iran’s possible retaliatory fines.

On Monday, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva described Trump’s plan as “piracy”.

“President Trump wrote that he will open the Strait of Hormuz,” Lula said at an event in Sao Paulo. But for each ship, the fuel owner must pay 20 percent.

What is behind it?

Trump’s new shutdown comes after a week of violence between the US and Iran that has disrupted peace talks.

The US launched a counterattack against Iran last week, accusing it of violating the terms of the agreement regarding the Strait of Hormuz in their negotiations. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has made several threats to return US military equipment to the Gulf states and Jordan.

Krieg said the deeper problem is strategy.

“Every time Washington makes new ideas in public without making an international agreement, it reinforces the idea in Tehran that the United States wants an opportunity because it has run out of military means.

“This encourages the IRGC to establish its position rather than compromise.” Paradoxically, attitudes like these make it difficult, not easy, to persuade Iran to abandon its increasingly problematic stance.