Iran's envoy to the International Maritime Organization, Ali Mousavi, notified the body on Tuesday that "non-hostile vessels" may transit the Strait of Hormuz — provided they coordinate with Iranian authorities and comply with security requirements set by Tehran. Ships linked to the United States and Israel are explicitly excluded. [1]

This paper reported yesterday that Iran had begun charging tanker operators approximately $2 million per vessel for Hormuz passage, a toll that Tehran simultaneously confirmed through its parliament and denied through its embassy. Tuesday's IMO notification moves the arrangement from informal shakedown to declared policy — with the added refinement of deciding, ship by ship, who qualifies as a friend.

The concept Iran is invoking does not exist in international maritime law. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea guarantees "transit passage" through international straits to all vessels, regardless of flag state or destination. There is no "non-hostile passage" provision. Iran's notification effectively asserts that the Strait of Hormuz operates under Iranian rules for the duration of the conflict — a position no major maritime power has accepted. [2]

The practical effect is a two-tier system. Ships flagged to neutral or friendly states — China, India, Turkey, Gulf Arab states that have not joined the war — may transit if they contact Iranian naval authorities in advance. Ships with any connection to the United States or Israel, including vessels owned by American or Israeli companies but flagged elsewhere, are barred. [1][3]

Bloomberg reported Tuesday that the notification sent insurance markets into another round of repricing. War-risk premiums for Hormuz transit, already at historic highs, now depend on a ship's perceived political alignment with Tehran. Lloyd's underwriters are reportedly assessing vessels on a case-by-case basis, with premiums varying by flag state, beneficial ownership, and cargo destination. [3]

The United States called the notification illegal. Brett McGurk, the White House coordinator for the Middle East, posted the full text of Iran's IMO statement on social media and called it "a blockade dressed up in diplomatic language." [1] The distinction matters legally: a blockade is an act of war under international law, while selective transit restrictions occupy a grayer zone that Iran is attempting to exploit.

Roughly 20 percent of the world's oil supply passes through Hormuz in normal times. Traffic has dropped to a fraction of that since the war began. Iran's notification does not reopen the strait so much as formalize its closure to anyone Tehran considers hostile — which, at present, includes the world's largest economy and its most important Middle Eastern ally.

-- PRIYA SHARMA, Delhi