President Donald Trump recently asserted that the United States would claim the Strait of Hormuz as its own territory. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi dismissed this claim as a delusion, maintaining that the waterway remains under Iranian control.
The Plan to Charge Tolls on the Strait of Hormuz
President Donald Trump has signaled a desire to transform the Strait of Hormuz into a revenue stream for the United States. During a speech delivered at a Long Island police academy on Friday, the President claimed that once the US finishes defeating Iran, he will declare the waterway US territory. According to the report, Trump intends to impose tolls on ships passing through the strait, stating that the US will "charge ships to go through it" to generate significant profit.
This "victor goes the spoils" approach suggests a shift in US strategy from maintaining freedom of navigation to asserting direct ownership. By framing the strait as a financial asset, the US administration is linking military victory directly to economic extraction, a move that deviates from traditional international maritime law.
Kazem Gharibabadi's Rejection of 'Election Speech' Diplomacy
Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi has responded with sharp ridicule, asserting that the Strait of Hormuz cannot be seized via a "tweet," an "election speech," or an aircraft carrier. In a post on X, Gharibabadi insisted that the waterway has always been, and will remain, Iranian. He warned that Iran will continue to enforce its blockade of the waterway as long as President Donald Trump refuses to accept the "reality of deefeat."
The Iranian government's stance highlights a fundamental disagreement over the legitimacy of US claims. By labeling the President's assertions as "delusions," Gharibabadi is positioning Iran as the sole authority capable of opening or closing the strait, directly challenging the US claim that only America currently controls the passage.
From 140 Tankers to Six: The Collapse of Oil Traffic
The ongoing six-month conflict, which began in February, has devastated the commercial utility of the Strait of Hormuz. as reported by the source, the waterway typically saw 140 oil tankers crossing daily before hostilities broke out; however, only six vessels traveled through the strait last weekend. this collapse in traffic is particularly critical given that the strait historically carried one-fifth of the global oil supply.
The economic ripple effects are already evident in global markets. Crude oil prices rose 6 per cent this week alone, driven by fading hopes for a peace deal between the US and Iran. this volatility underscores the fragility of global energy security when a primary chokepoint becomes a theater of war.
The Abu Dhabi National Oil Company Tanker Strike
Recent military escalations in the region have moved beyond rhetoric to direct kinetic action. The UK Maritime Trade Operations Centre reported that a vessel belonging to the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company was struck by an "unknown projectile" yesterday. While the strike allegedly hit the vessel's hull, no injuries were reported.
This attack serves as a concrete example of the dangers facing commercial shipping in the region. It reinforces the Iranian threat to maintain a blockade and demonstrates that the conflict is actively targeting the infrastructure of oil-exporting nations, further destabilizing the Persian Gulf.
The Legal Clash Between US Ambitions and Omani-Iranian Jurisdiction
The legal reality of the Strait of Hormuz contradicts the territorial claims made by President Donald Trump. The waterway, which connects the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, is currently under the shared jurisdiction of Oman and Iran. The US proposal to seize ownership as part of a peace deal would require a total rewrite of existing maritime boundaries and international treaties.
Several critical points remain unverified or unanswered. The report does not include a response from the government of Oman, the other sovereign entity with jurisdiction over the strait. Furthermore, it remains unclear how the US intends to legally justify the transition from a blockade to permanent territorial ownership under international law, or whether these claims are primarily intended for a domestic political audience ahead of the November midterm elections.
Comments 0