The Strait of Hormuz has been opened, and Iran has begun to act as its policeman, controlling maritime traffic and speaking of levying fees. The White House denies this, insisting there are no tolls and that Iran had pledged as such, threatening the return of US warships anchored near the Gulf.
It appears one of the two parties is not telling the truth, or we are facing ambiguity due to differing interpretations of the agreement.
Even if Iran does not collect a single dollar in tolls, its control over the Strait grants it extremely dangerous political authority. Tehran's ultimate goal is to control the Gulf by installing itself as the decision-maker for allowing or denying oil tankers passage. This will later translate into all countries in the region, as well as importing countries worldwide, becoming subject to the decision of Iranian naval officers regarding selective passage or obstruction.
This will manifest when Iran has a dispute with any Gulf state, as it will then seek to prevent it from exporting under various pretexts. Tehran will also punish European or Asian importing countries by restricting passing shipments. It will use the Strait to impose its policies on Gulf states and punish them whenever it wishes. Furthermore, Iran will impose unauthorized levies on vessels passing through. This is Tehran's known behavior for decades: it abducts individuals on the street from nationalities of countries with which it has disputes, accusing them of fabricated charges to pressure their governments into making concessions. It practices the same in Iraq and Lebanon through its militias.
When US Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Rubio state that Iran pledged not to impose fees on the Strait, this may be true, but it does not negate Iran's intention to exercise full control without selling transit tickets for financial fees.
Political hegemony is more dangerous than financial extortion. The Sultanate of Oman's announcement of a parallel corridor served as a test for the Iranian leadership. It is likely that it will not succeed in enduring as long as there is no military deterrent force to support it.
The dispute over the opening of the Strait will determine the future of the Gulf. Are the Gulf states and other countries affected by the situation doing enough to mobilize world opinion to prevent the slide towards a geopolitical situation that will impact regional security and threaten oil exports for years to come?
It was the closure of the Strait of Hormuz that pushed Trump to negotiate and hastily conclude the memorandum of understanding in Geneva, not Iran's missile and drone attacks. For Iran, as Trump said, lost the military war, but was able to withstand losses while awaiting the moment for negotiations.
What were the real motives behind the Geneva concessions? Trump told the truth, expressing his fear of economic downturns and their signs of inflation and rising gasoline prices. The strategic reserve, which was full with 415 million barrels -America's most important energy defense line - had fallen to less than 20 percent, its lowest level since 1983.
The US President had to decide: either risk what remained of his presidency and his party's electoral future in the upcoming November elections by continuing the war, or rush to strike a deal with Qalibaf, the envoy of the new Iranian leadership.
Tehran clearly interpreted this American eagerness to conclude a deal and responded with a set of conditions, including the administration of the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, Trump's team focused on the nuclear clause, which the administration prioritized regardless of the cost of other concessions.
It is important to note that the US counter-blockade plan against Iran's closure of the Strait was effective and contributed to forcing Tehran to negotiate. Iranian President Pezeshkian, who visited Pakistan to thank it for its mediation efforts, stated that his country was on the verge of collapse were it not for the negotiations.
Washington's team entered negotiations in Islamabad demanding the prevention of nuclear proliferation, the handover of enriched uranium, the opening of the Strait, and the disbandment of the regime's militias. It emerged from Geneva having signed a memorandum pledging to prevent aggression against Iran and its ally Hezbollah, enable its access to frozen funds, and establish a relief fund!
Yet, the regime was, until the beginning of last month, under rubble. So what happened? Regarding these gifts, Vance states that they are for building trust and that the final agreement will appear balanced with reasonable Iranian, American, and regional concessions.
Since Geneva, the Iranian side has felt and acted with alarming high confidence. It is exerting pressure and threats. It has not reciprocated the American gifts with tangible concessions. Even the opening of the Strait was accompanied by a condition obliging ships to acknowledge its right to question them, provide their data, and await its approval, which is not a concession but rather establishes new rules of control.
