Iran and US Clash Over Hormuz Control Despite Announced Pause in Fighting

A fragile ceasefire between the United States and Iran has coincided with escalating tensions over the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran has moved to tighten control over one of the world’s most critical maritime routes. Even as negotiations on a longer-term settlement are expected to continue, shipping through the narrow waterway has remained heavily restricted, with Iranian naval forces warning vessels against attempting passage without authorization.

According to reports, Tehran and Washington agreed to a two-week pause in hostilities shortly before a US deadline for Iran to reopen the strait expired. Talks are now expected to continue in Islamabad, with both sides working toward a more durable arrangement. Iranian officials have separately advanced a broader proposal outlining a framework for ending the conflict, which has been described by US President Donald Trump as a “workable” starting point, though he has also insisted that final terms are still being negotiated behind closed doors.

Central to the emerging dispute is Iran’s proposal to formalize its influence over transit through the Strait of Hormuz. According to senior Iranian officials cited in reports, the plan includes introducing a charge of around USD 2 million per container ship passing through the waterway once it is fully reopened. The route, which handles roughly one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments, has long been considered strategically vital to global energy markets.

Iranian sources have indicated that revenue from such fees could be shared with Oman, with Tehran’s portion directed toward rebuilding infrastructure damaged during recent hostilities. The system is also described as building on existing practices during the conflict period, when Iranian forces reportedly screened and escorted vessels through designated corridors after assessing their affiliations and destinations.

A broadcast issued by the Iranian navy reportedly warned that any attempt to cross the strait without approval would be met with force, reinforcing concerns that maritime traffic remains effectively constrained despite the declared ceasefire. Shipping activity had previously been severely disrupted following earlier military strikes in the region, contributing to volatility in global energy supplies.

Analysts cited in international reporting suggest that Iran views control over the strait as a strategic tool that extends beyond immediate military leverage. One researcher noted that “control over the strait can serve as a powerful deterrent,” allowing Tehran to exert pressure on multiple states simultaneously by influencing a key global trade artery.

Under the proposed arrangement, Iran’s ability to regulate transit could also serve economic objectives, including generating revenue for reconstruction and reducing the impact of long-standing sanctions. However, legal experts argue that imposing mandatory transit fees would conflict with established international maritime principles, particularly the right of innocent passage through international straits.

A maritime law specialist said such a system would run counter to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, noting that while special arrangements exist in some waterways, they are typically based on multilateral agreements rather than unilateral enforcement. He warned that similar practices elsewhere could set a problematic precedent for other strategic maritime corridors.

Regional implications remain significant, as Gulf economies rely heavily on uninterrupted passage through the strait. Some experts argue that any formalized Iran-Oman arrangement could shift the balance of influence in the region, potentially creating tensions with neighboring states dependent on stable export routes.

At the same time, diplomatic efforts to stabilize the situation continue alongside renewed military pressure. US officials have insisted that the strait must remain open, while Iranian representatives maintain that their conditions for peace include broader political and security concessions from Washington and its allies.

The ceasefire itself remains uncertain, with both sides presenting conflicting interpretations of its scope. While mediators have suggested it applies across multiple theatres, including Lebanon, senior officials in Tehran have accused the US of failing to meet key commitments, while Washington and its allies have rejected those claims.

The situation has been further complicated by renewed violence in Lebanon, where Israeli strikes have caused significant casualties and intensified regional instability. Lebanese officials have condemned the attacks as violations of international law, while military operations have continued across multiple areas, including Beirut and southern regions.