Crowley said the ceasefire announced by President Donald Trump on Wednesday, tied to Iran’s reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, immediately sparked optimism that shipping would soon resume. This is not the case.
The next morning, traffic was still light. Several ships, mostly linked to Iran, transited the border. But most of the boats waiting in the bay stayed put. Iran announced shortly thereafter that it would effectively close the strait as a result of Israeli attacks on Lebanon.
The reality is that the Channel never closed. Framing issues as “open” or “closed” misses the point.
The vessel was not physically blocked. They are being intimidated.
In recent weeks, Iran has demonstrated its capabilities and intent to target commercial shipping. Attacks and credible threats against ships have reduced daily transits from around 130 to a handful. Ship numbers will not come back in significant numbers until risks change.
So what can be done to reverse this situation?
Walk and talk
Rather than solving the problem, the ceasefire declaration has only increased uncertainty.
Washington insists the strait is open.
Tehran’s messaging was vaguer, including mention of requiring ships to notify Iranian authorities before transiting.
Some interpreted this as a precursor to attempts to impose controls on waterways through tolls.
This ambiguity is important. Shipping is a business driven by risk calculations. Operators and crews will not act on political statements, especially when recent experience shows those statements may not hold true.
The importance of comfort
In practice, the restoration of Channel traffic is likely to occur in two phases.
The first is to reduce the threat. This could be accomplished through military means, diplomacy, or a combination of both, but it would have to severely weaken Iran’s ability and willingness to target shipping.
The second is peace of mind.
Even if Iran’s attacks on civilian shipping are halted by a ceasefire, shipping will not resume immediately. Confidence has been shaken and will take time to rebuild.
A credible assurance effort would include limited naval escort, at least initially. It is worth noting that the United States did not take immediate action to escort commercial ships flying American flags and crews out of the Gulf to show confidence in the ceasefire.
This would send a clear signal to the industry, helping to restore confidence in transit and undercut Iran’s subsequent claims that ships need approval from its armed forces.
Given Iran’s interest in maintaining the ceasefire, it is unlikely to challenge ships under U.S. naval protection. U.S. hesitation has instead created space for Iran to consolidate its position, force ships closer to its coastline and increase its ability to decide how to use the strait.
Effective pacification campaigns also require a broader international presence to provide surveillance, information sharing, and rapid response capabilities. The international community should move quickly to establish this. Its establishment will help restore people’s confidence in transportation.
We’ve seen this model before. The international maritime security architecture, established in 2019 after Iran attacked the Gulf of Oman, focuses on transparency, coordination and assurances rather than large-scale convoy operations.
I served as Program Director for the building in 2020. A similar but more efficient approach may again be needed. It’s not a silver bullet, but the guarantees are layered, which at least provides the clarity and communication that shippers need.
Diplomacy is also important. A clear, coordinated message from the international community, coupled with support for the clear economic consequences of another attack on commercial shipping, is crucial to rebuilding confidence.
toll issue
–
There has also been speculation about whether Iran might seek to impose tolls on ships passing through the strait.
The legal position here is clear. The Strait of Hormuz is an international strait stipulated in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Ships enjoy the right of passage through the strait. Charging vessels for passage would go directly against this principle and set a dangerous precedent for other strategic waterways.
There are early signs that Iran is testing the border. Reports of radio warnings that ships need approval to transit and advising ships to notify Iranian authorities before crossing are signs of an attempt by Iran to exert greater control over the strait.
This behavior should be resisted.
Allowing charges, or even limited restrictions, to be introduced in the Strait of Hormuz would have far-reaching consequences, undermining a core principle of maritime trade: freedom of navigation. No matter how flippant Donald Trump’s rhetoric, the international community is unlikely to accept any lasting regime of Iranian tolls.
If Iran attempts to do so, it should face clear economic consequences, including sanctions.
Questions remain about whether mines are buried in or near the strait. Even this recommendation increases uncertainty and reinforces the need for an internationally coordinated response, including a transparent assessment of the threat environment.
A clear public assessment by the international community of whether the strait is indeed mined would go a long way. This should be an early priority in any coalition effort.
bottom line
Eventually, shipping will return to the Strait of Hormuz, not when it is declared open, but when the strait is assessed to be safe enough.
This would require a sustained period of freedom from attack, visible international efforts to secure the waterway, and a clear signal that rules in international straits will be upheld.
Until then, the ships will wait. R&D
R&D
This article was generated from automated news agency feeds without modifications to the text.
