Trump says Hormuz open, Iran pays 20% shipping toll
US and Iran renewed fighting last week over disputes surrounding control and security of the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz.
- Trump cancelled a proposed 20% toll on Strait of Hormuz shipping, replacing it with promised Gulf trade and investment deals.
- U.S. strikes on Iran and subsequent Iranian responses have reignited regional hostilities.
- Iran’s parliament called to end the interim memorandum with the U.S. and introduced a bill on control of the Strait.
- Israel and Lebanon resumed talks; Israel proposed “pilot zones” for phased troop withdrawal.
- Analysts say forcibly reopening the strait would require a large, sustained military effort with significant human and economic costs.
A swirl of high-stakes diplomacy, naval manoeuvres and political theatre has once again centred on the Strait of Hormuz — a narrow waterway whose calm or chaos reverberates through global energy markets and the daily bills of families everywhere. President Donald Trump surprised observers by reversing plans for a 20 percent toll on ships passing the strait, announcing instead that Gulf states would make “massive” trade and investment deals with the United States. The sudden pivot points to a blend of brinkmanship and deal-making that has characterised recent U.S. policy in the region.
Trump framed the move as the product of “highly productive conversations” with Middle East leaders, replacing the punitive “United States Reimbursement Fee” with promised investments. But specifics remain murky: it is unclear whether these investments are new commitments, mere re-statements of past pledges, or binding proposals that would offset the economic rationale for a shipping toll. The uncertainty has heightened anxieties in regional capitals and on global markets.
Meanwhile, the situation on the ground — and at sea — is far from settled. The U.S. carried out strikes on Iranian targets after a recent escalation, and Iran responded by attacking allied states in the Middle East. In Tehran, a significant majority of parliamentarians demanded an end to the interim memorandum with Washington and urged “pursuing revenge,” reflecting hardline domestic pressures. Lawmakers in Iran have also moved to draft a bill asserting control over the Strait of Hormuz on Tehran’s terms — a gesture that both signals domestic resolve and complicates diplomatic pathways.
The Strait itself recorded an ominously low traffic day: only four ships transited on Tuesday, the fewest since the interim deal in June. Ship-tracking data showed vessels masking destination and ownership details — a chilling sign of commercial actors seeking shelter from geopolitical risk. For ordinary people, this translates into an immediate worry: disruptions in shipments reverberate into higher oil, fertiliser and food prices, squeezing household budgets already burdened by global inflation.
Efforts at diplomacy continue alongside military posturing. Israel’s foreign minister described plans for “pilot zones” in southern Lebanon where Israeli forces would withdraw and Lebanese troops would reassert control after Hezbollah’s planned pullback — part of a U.S.-brokered framework. Lebanon and Israel resumed talks in Rome in hopes of translating agreements into lasting stability, a fragile counterpoint to the wider region’s escalation.
The U.S. threat to “reopen” the strait by force, should Iran seek to close it again, raises stark practical questions. Military analysts note that enforcing unimpeded passage would require far more than a few strikes; it could demand sustained naval operations, coalition coordination, and significant resources. The human cost of such an operation would be high, and the political appetite for it among domestic and international audiences is uncertain.
At the centre of all this are people making impossible decisions: mariners rerouting for safety, traders pricing risk into contracts, families facing higher energy bills, and diplomats racing to stitch together bargains that prevent wider war. The interim deal’s collapse demonstrates the fragility of arrangements built on shaky trust and competing domestic pressures. If politics, markets and militaries fail to find a way out, the consequences will be felt in ports, markets and living rooms around the world.