Proposed Hormuz Deal Could Give Iran Entry Control and Cargo Fees
Draft terms for reopening the Strait of Hormuz would give Iran authority over inbound shipping and could impose cargo-based service fees, leaving major disputes unresolved despite claims that a deal is close.
A proposed agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz could give Iran control over ships entering the Gulf while Oman oversees outbound traffic, according to regional and Iranian sources. The draft also raises the possibility of cargo-based service fees—a provision the United States opposes and one that could turn a temporary reopening into a lasting shift in how the strategic waterway is governed.
The new details sharpen the central dispute behind several days of optimistic statements. Washington has described an agreement as close. Tehran has denied that formal direct talks are underway. The emerging draft suggests intermediaries have developed a practical shipping plan, but the most consequential terms remain unresolved.
Reuters reported that Iran wants authority over inbound vessel movement, including inspection and security decisions. Oman would supervise ships leaving the Gulf. Sources also described competing proposals for fees tied to cargo value, with Iran seeking a higher rate than Oman and the United States rejecting mandatory charges.
Reopening Is Not the Same as Restoring the Old Rules
The immediate goal is to move commercial vessels safely through a route that carries a major share of global oil and gas exports. But the draft would not simply restore the prewar status quo.
Giving Iran formal control over inbound traffic would convert leverage gained during the conflict into an acknowledged operational role. Tehran could influence inspections, sequencing, delays and decisions about which vessels present a security concern. Even if Oman managed outbound traffic, the system would place two regional governments between commercial shipping and the long-standing principle of unrestricted transit through an international strait.
That is why the argument over wording matters. A temporary coordination mechanism can become a precedent. Once shipping companies, insurers and port operators adapt to a managed-entry system, removing it may be politically and operationally difficult.
Fees Could Become the Hardest Issue
The proposed service charge is more than a technical detail. Reuters reported that Iranian sources discussed a fee equal to roughly 5% to 7% of cargo value, while an Omani proposal was lower. Washington has insisted that vessels should not pay Iran for passage.
A percentage-based charge on oil, liquefied natural gas or high-value cargo could be enormous. It would affect freight contracts, insurance, commodity prices and the economics of Gulf exports. It would also give Iran a continuing revenue stream linked directly to global trade.
Supporters may describe the payment as compensation for security, inspection or mine-clearing services. Opponents will see it as a toll imposed under military pressure.
The label will not determine the market impact. Whether called a service fee, security assessment or transit charge, the cost would be priced into cargo and ultimately passed through supply chains.
A Deal Could Still Be Narrow and Temporary
The draft does not settle the broader confrontation over Iran’s nuclear program, missile forces, sanctions or regional allies. It also would not end Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, where separate shipping incidents have continued even as Hormuz mediation advanced.
A narrow maritime agreement could nevertheless reduce the risk of another immediate U.S. strike and allow some trapped or delayed vessels to move. That would provide relief without resolving the underlying war.
The practical tests are straightforward:
- whether both governments publicly accept the same text
- whether shipping resumes without selective delays or seizures
- whether any fees are voluntary, fixed or tied to cargo value
- whether inspections are limited by clear standards
- whether commercial insurers treat the route as materially safer
Until those points are settled, claims that Hormuz is about to reopen should be understood as political optimism rather than an operational guarantee.
The draft now on the table is not merely about opening a channel. It is about deciding who controls it, who pays and whether emergency wartime leverage becomes the new maritime order.
Found this useful? Share it.
