The pursuit of peace might hinge on oil prices in the Persian Gulf.
Happy Friday! Here’s a selection of noteworthy news from the past week that we think you should know about.
This week, we were on the brink of escalating conflict that could have destroyed cultural heritage, but then, well, things took a turn towards Disputes over toll collection. Progress and peace are on the table!
A war’s end is in your hands
The U.S. and Iran reached a ceasefire agreement this week, which was met with skepticism Considered a failure by mainstream media and some political figures. Some even claimed that Iran emerged victorious, despite significant losses, including a diminished military presence and the destruction of crucial capabilities.
Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut critiqued the operation, labeling it a failure since Iran’s regime remains intact. This view seems a bit, well, narrow-minded It reflects an extreme standard of victory. If that’s the bar, the U.S. could find itself endlessly embroiled in conflict until, quite frankly, it surrenders. The real aim of Operation Epic Fury was not necessarily regime change but rather to limit the threat Iran posed, especially to American interests.
One can’t help but notice that many critics of President Trump might actually want this ceasefire to fail. After all, failure would align with their narrative that we’ve been in a perpetual state of war. An unavoidable quagmire that has fractured “Make America Great Again” sentiments and harmed the economy. It’s particularly troubling to those invested in the narrative that the U.S. military managed to accomplish its mission within the original six-week timeline.
We’re hopeful that the ceasefire paves the way for sustainable peace. Neither the U.S. nor Iran stands to gain from prolonging this conflict. Iran lacks significant military targets of interest and appears intent on reducing hostilities. So, why continue fighting when peace is a possibility?
Toll on the Strait of Hormuz
President Trump cautioned Iran against Implementing fees for vessels using the Strait of Hormuz, which seemed at odds with his earlier statements to ABC’s Jonathan Karl. Perhaps he was jesting about a “joint venture” for tolls, which he called a “beautiful thing.” While it might come across as a sincere point, can you really picture giving a serious address standing next to the Easter Bunny?
Iran has previously considered closing the Strait of Hormuz, but two factors delayed this. The first was the value of leveraging that threat as a Deterrent against potential military action. Recent revelations pointed out that Iran may have overvalued that deterrent power. There was also the possibility that the U.S. simply didn’t find the threat credible. Moreover, global dependence on Persian Gulf oil is not what it once was, largely due to increased production in the U.S.
The second reason for the delay stemmed from a Misjudgment of European nations’ readiness to confront control over the waterways. Both Europe and the U.S. have learned that Europe is often hesitant to take military action to protect oil access or uphold international navigation principles. In reality, international maritime law has often been little more than diplomatic statements.
So, where do we stand now? European and Gulf nations have denounced Iran’s tolls as breaches of international law, unacceptable to them. Trump’s latest comments suggested that Iran “must stop” charging fees. However, Iran has demonstrated its capability to entirely close the Strait, and it appears no one is prepared to take action against that. “I can’t tolerate this!” Just talk, lots of bold claims without any real backing. Saying you support something doesn’t equate to actual support.
“This must not be allowed. Iran should not make the neighboring countries of the Persian Gulf, many of which are U.S. allies, subservient. The global community cannot acquiesce to Iranian dominance.” Niall Ferguson, Richard Haas, and Philip Zelikow wrote in this week’s free press.
I bear the cost while you don’t.
Despite their objections, History shows that tolls in straits are not without precedent. Egypt imposes charges for passage through the Suez Canal, and the Panama Canal has similar tolls. The distinction between these canals and natural straits like Hormuz is intriguing, yet it doesn’t clarify why Hormuz tolls are frowned upon. While some justify tolls based on construction costs, this rationale seems less relevant after so much time has passed. Moreover, neither canal is managed by its original builder. Additionally, the Montreux Convention actually permits Turkey to levy tolls on ships passing through its straits.
International maritime laws aren’t set in stone; they arise from A pragmatic consensus among the world’s leading naval forces. It’s fundamentally about what is considered acceptable behavior on the seas. This comes with an implicit threat of repercussions for any violations. This isn’t a new concept. The U.S. didn’t secure maritime freedom in the Mediterranean by merely denouncing piracy. They engaged in combat. Similarly, Britain didn’t free the Persian Gulf from the Qawasim coalition by sitting behind desks; action was taken. Laws of the sea can and do evolve.
It’s very likely there will be some casualties in the Strait. So are Ferguson and his associates concerned. Of course, this wouldn’t be referred to as a toll; it might be something termed Persian Gulf Security and Navigation Charges. Here’s how free press describes potential outcomes.
President Trump mentioned his openness to a joint venture. Under a new treaty, the Strait of Hormuz could become a designated neutral passage for all commercial traffic, overseen by the new Strait of Hormuz Company (SOHCO). The agreement would include eight coastal nations, with involvement from external powers like the U.S., China, India, Japan, and South Korea, emphasizing America’s significant role here. The UK and EU may also be inclined to join, given the heavy reliance Asian economies have on trade through this route.
The company may be tasked with ensuring safe navigation while covering relevant costs. The major stakeholders would be the U.S. along with the coastal countries, including Iran, where voting rights would adhere to a majority principle.
A regulated toll system for passing through the Strait could be introduced by this company.
So, in conclusion, it seems there will likely be some form of toll.
Remembering our piracy past
About two and a half centuries ago, the Continental Congress decided to enter the piracy business.
In the wake of Prohibition (essentially a dissolution letter backing the world’s strongest navy), Congress retaliated by allowing privateering on March 23, 1776. The way it worked was straightforward. Show up with your boat, and claim your permit. “Mark’s Letter” could take about half of any British ships captured, with the other half going to the crew, effectively legalizing piracy with nationalistic justification.
It turned out to be quite effective. When the first licensed privateer set sail in June 1776, they captured four British vessels, raking in about $1 million in gold back in Philadelphia. John Adams remarked that “thousands of privateering plans floated in American minds.” He wasn’t exaggerating; more than 1,000 privateers operated during the war, netting around 1,500 British ships.
There were critics who thought privateers were undermining the Continental Navy, given that Congress was nearly broke and could barely maintain a few ships. However, privateers didn’t sap America’s maritime strength; they were the very essence of it.
George Washington grasped the reality of the situation. He himself wouldn’t accept payment, but he understood that relying on people to fight solely for honor wouldn’t suffice. “This principle alone can never support large-scale and permanent war,” he noted. “Some incentive or reward must be included.”
