· 141 comments · Save ·
News & Current Events Apr 12, 2026 at 9:26 AM

Iran must not charge tolls in Strait of Hormuz, UN maritime chief says | Shipping News

Posted by AdventurousGuest308

Iran must not charge tolls in Strait of Hormuz, UN maritime chief says
Al Jazeera
Iran must not charge tolls in Strait of Hormuz, UN maritime chief says
In interview with Al Jazeera, International Maritime Organization chief says world should reject tolls in waterway.
🚩 Report this post

141 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
ruskyandrei 1 day ago +235
Ok so what's the international community going to do about it ? Unless we're talking full scale invasion of Iran, it's either accept their tolls or accept that barely anything comes through that strait, which is going to cause the bigges financial crisis since 2008.
235
The-Board-Chairman 1 day ago +109
>Unless we're talking full scale invasion of Iran, Guess what's about to happen ✨✨
109
kachol 1 day ago +85
The sky is the limit with stupidity but a ground invasion of Iran would be one of the stupidest moves of the 21st and probably the last 300 years. There were almost 600k troops involved in Iraq and that was a shitshow. Iran would be a completely different level. Much bigger, even less international support for the US, etc.
85
MaxedMinute 1 day ago +86
Justified or not, the invasion of Iraq was flawless. It was over in weeks with almost no casualties. It was the twenty year occupation and counterinsurgency that was a complete shit show. The United States has never had a problem with winning conventional wars. It's never been able to deal with what comes after. That said, I agree that an invasion of Iran would be a complete disaster for a myriad of reasons.
86
Master-Leopard-7830 1 day ago +46
I think the words for "dealing with what comes after" are planning and strategy.
46
primeweevil 20 hr ago +5
Unfortunately it's a bit more involved then sticking a troop unit or two in the city to keep people happy. But we can't seem to figure that out over and over and over.
5
[deleted] 23 hr ago -11
[removed]
-11
CanadianTrollToll 22 hr ago +7
Yah - I think modern day "good" countries struggle with occupations because to stop people from rising up requires some diabolical methods. In the world of public opinion its a tad harder to hide doing said atrocities.
7
Perfect_Sir4820 1 day ago +12
>the invasion of Iraq was flawless. It was over in weeks with almost no casualties. It was the twenty year occupation and counterinsurgency that was a complete shit show. That misses the point. Sending planes in to blow a few things up and then leaving doesn't accomplish any strategic objectives which is a military and political failure.
12
thereoncewasahat 1 day ago +19
They can continue to hit the strait in many different ways even if we go in and hammer them. Which we would. We can't win.
19
foghillgal 23 hr ago +5
They would hit the rest of the gulf nations that support the US . That\`s were the long term damage would be.
5
jjax2003 1 day ago +14
This is 100% correct. You will never be able to win and gain control of the Strait indefinitely. There will always be a risk.
14
faffc260 1 day ago +5
I'd assume the IRGC and to a lesser extent the regular army of iran has been preparing for a guerilla conflict, and not a conventional war which as you rightly say the american military is among the best in the world at executing.
5
AK_Panda 1 day ago +7
Yeah, the invasion would be relatively "easy" compared to occupying Iran long term.
7
Barbarake 1 day ago +7
Geography. Iran is four times larger and mountainous while Iraq is flat. Iran also has roughly double the population of Iraq. Also, the US's huge military budget compared to either country - though obviously a big factor - is in danger of becoming less so due to the rise of low-cost drones. And if by conventional wars, you mean World War II - I agree. Our record is not so good with smaller wars such as Korea and Vietnam.
7
shamantr 23 hr ago +3
You should compared the topology of Iraq and iran.
3
MaxedMinute 21 hr ago +1
You should read all the way through comments.
1
Ishan451 1 day ago -2
If the invasion would have been flawless, then there wouldn't have been "occupation" nor "counterinsurgencies". The fact that enough of the original regime remained, enough weapons remained in the hands of the populace and it never reached the level of control that allowed them to ensure that no active resistance could be formed, is very much a flaw of the invasion. A flawless invasion decapitates the country and removes any chance of fighting back in any coordinated form, as well as establishes the necessary control of the invaded territory to ensure that no "insurgencies" happen.
-2
MaxedMinute 23 hr ago +1
Okay, whatever you think General Armchair Jackson. You don't even seem to understand there are different stages of war, or that occupation typically follows invasion. Hell you don't even seem to realize Iran, Russia and numerous other foreign actors supplied weapons and soldiers to the Iraqi insurgents. What do I know though, I only actually served and lived through it all?
1
Ishan451 23 hr ago +5
Am I supposed to be impressed now? Rando on the internet claims he served and lived through it all, while not understanding the difference between a swift and a flawless invasion. Not only are you not the only one that served (if you even did), but also if it had been flawless then Lance Corporal Matty Hull wouldn't have died to friendly fire (just to name a simple and very prominent example of why it can't have been flawless under any metric). But sure, do your internet tough guy routine. I am sure, one day it will impress someone. Keep the dream alive.
5
FairGeneral8804 1 day ago +2
> It was over in weeks Date: 20 March 2003 – 18 December 2011 (8 years, 8 months and 28 days)
2
MaxedMinute 1 day ago +9
The initial invasion took about five weeks... Ask me how I know.
9
FairGeneral8804 1 day ago
Sure, but you don't get to pick one specific phase, and call it "the war" in it's entirety, or say "we'd crush it in Kursk !" when standing in the middle of Afghanistan. The irak war last ~9 years, including a long period of enemy occupation, after which the US retreated.
0
Seanspeed 23 hr ago +5
This is an insanely misleading portrayal of the situation. The actual war with the Saddam's Iraqi military was over within about a month, with the US being inarguable victors. The mess that came after was basically a wholly different conflict, and an extremely messy one that went through all kinds of various phases, much of it being more akin to an actual Iraqi Civil War, rather than US vs Iraq or anything like that. The US was not there as an 'enemy occupation'(it was a coalition which included Iraqi government), nor did they 'retreat' as if they were militarily pushed out. Yet more dishonest portrayals.
5
FairGeneral8804 22 hr ago +5
> The actual war with the Saddam's Iraqi military was over within about a month Yes. And ? WW2 didn't stop in France with the german spring victory and the surrender of the Vichy regime. And half the resistance was communists and the other half nationalists. > The US was not there as an 'enemy occupation', nor did they 'retreat'. Yet more dishonest portrayals. Waded in, d*** in hand, on false premises, stirred shit for the entire duration leading to hundreds of thousands of casualties, then fucked off due to political pressure, leaving shit everywhere, including local allies. Call it however you want.
5
itsmehobnob 21 hr ago +2
Perhaps consider the possibility that the “portrayal of the situation” you’re familiar with is wrong. Why do you get to define the first 5 weeks as a “wholly different conflict?” From the rest of the world it looks like the American military rationalizing a lost war. “I would have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for them militants who didn’t stop fighting when we asked them really nice, and then not so nice.” The war was 8 years. The US lost that war, after winning the early battles.
2
dragon_idli 22 hr ago +1
Some of the soldiers still suffering for PTSD did 8 tours in Iraq. So according to you they did those 8 tours during the 5 weeks of war. Great.
1
Critical_Text_2067 21 hr ago +1
Calling occupation part of war misses in a lot of context. You could say India won its 200+ year war against the British.
1
niftybunny 1 day ago +4
so the us will attack.
4
Primary-Debate-549 1 day ago +2
Stock market seems to imply one of 2 options: 1) no, the US won't attack 2) the US has already won or, I suppose, 3) stock market is wrong. Obviously, don't bet on this.
2
Jatobi1993 1 day ago +3
On the bright side, as the president is a draft dodger, no one can complain if you dodge the draft on this.
3
sgtabn173 22 hr ago +1
My bone spurs *have* been acting up lately...
1
The-Board-Chairman 1 day ago +2
Iraq was annoying in occupation, not in the invasion. Ground troops advancing with total air supremacy will just wipe out anything in their way with minimal casualties, no matter what terrain.
2
AGIwhen 1 day ago +24
Iraq is a flat country with open desert, Iran is mostly mountains, much bigger in terms of land size and population and has the advantage of 10,000s of small drones that there is very little defence against. If you want to see how an invasion of Iran would go, just look at how slowly Russia is advancing in Ukraine and the massive casualties they take just to capture a field. Now imagine somebody trying to advance through mountainous terrain where the Iranians have been digging in for 50 years and have thousands of miles of underground tunnels and bunkers whilst still having open supply lines to Russia.
24
Checked-Out 1 day ago +2
What about their water boats tho??? The US could take them in a fist fight easily.
2
yosisoy 22 hr ago +1
If Russia had America's military though...
1
AGIwhen 22 hr ago +2
The advantage of more firepower is negated when fighting against an enemy in fortified positions inside mountains that can also attack you from 100 miles away with drones
2
The-Board-Chairman 1 day ago -4
Russia doesn't even have air superiority at the front, nevermind air supremacy over the whole country. If they did, Ukraine would have fallen a long time ago. And neither bunkers nor mountains are any use to the IRGC; Iran doesn't need to be occupied, the IRGC are not the Taliban which can afford to retreat from the cities. The population in Iran is hostile to the regime.
-4
Additional-Can9184 1 day ago +29
Killing civilians and threatening civilization extinction does not really make Iranians big fans of US. Population might be hostile to the regime, does not mean they would welcome US.
29
Character-Fish-541 1 day ago +12
You talk about Iran like it’s a monolith. There’s the Balochi’s, Kurds, and Azeris, all of them are actively hostile to the regime. But that doesn’t mean they’re aligned with the US, and setting them loose will force the Persians together to resist them, regardless of how they feel about the regime. Iran has all the potential to become a sectarian hellhole just like Iraq did. With triple the insurgency given land surface area, and population.
12
Checked-Out 1 day ago +6
Way to brag about something no one really cares about. What happens after you destroy the country. That's always been the problem.
6
Primary-Debate-549 1 day ago +4
It is a problem because of WHAT the US has historically tried to achieve: to get countries to join the world economy. If the US simply wants to prevent Iran from touching oil shipping ... the problem is avoided.
4
NFTArtist 22 hr ago +1
US don't need international support, remember he said we stayed back behind the front lines. So US can handle this.
1
_THEWATERB0Y_ 1 day ago +1
Assuming Iran doesn’t back down from its toll booth for the Strait stance, I don’t think the US will be alone in that invasion. Several EU countries will join in.
1
white_wabbit_ 22 hr ago +1
Your war, dont pull us into it
1
ojoslocos21 1 day ago +7
another tweet how “we won the war”, “their military has been wiped out”, etc and the markets will rally again….. ugh its so stupid. Just crash already.
7
Shirolicious 1 day ago +15
Freedom of navigation in international waters is worth fighting for and to preserve. I can ultimately see other nations forcing this and spin into action. You can see countries even challenging china for freedom of navigation in international waters. And indeed it will be a mistake/act of war from Iran eventually if they were to attack in international waters with consequences as a result. Even if they “dont care”.
15
treesandcigarettes 22 hr ago +7
there is no scenario where you leave Iran in full sovereign control of the strait. no scenario. either you pull off this band-aid now or you pull it off years from now. international pressure can help push Iran to agree to a negotiation deal that leaves Hormuz free to cross
7
yosisoy 22 hr ago +2
Nothing, just whine at the US and blame Israel
2
tenebras_lux 1 day ago +5
Iran can demand a lot from he US and the world would stand by and laugh at the US, blocking the straight will cause the world to turn on them.
5
Philo_Publius1776 23 hr ago +11
Iran's demands / pursuit of a nuclear weapon is also going to turn the world against them.
11
soft_taco_special 15 hr ago +2
That's not how the world works. Europe is highly dependent on imported energy, it can currently endure while its strategic reserves last and the current rhetoric is only present because there is still the possibility of a strategic exit. If the US doesn't relent and Iran keeps up its threats Europe will choose to help topple Iran because their material reality is more important than political rhetoric.
2
Jatobi1993 1 day ago +3
What can the UN do anyway? It hasn’t stopped anything it was set up to do. It’s literally the League of Nations all over again. Impotent, and useless.
3
Young_Lochinvar 1 day ago +3
The UN is impotent by design, but it’s not useless. It’s being used exactly as intended - as a place to air-out and discuss issues.
3
Scared-Room-9962 1 day ago -3
The international community? This is a USA problem caused by the USA. The USA needs to fix it. Maybe the "opposition" could voice some disapproval? Or why don't you do another weekend peaceful protest? They work well. A nation with the right to bare arms for this exact situation but "Sowwy guys my healthcare is tied to my employment!"
-3
TabulatorSpalte 1 day ago +13
The USA started an illegal war under international laws but charging tolls in international waters is also illegal. The very same set of rules that makes the Iran war illegal also protects maritime trade. You can’t pick and choose laws as you wish, that goes for both US and Iran.
13
Bold814 1 day ago +11
lol this is Listnook. They’ll pick and choose whatever they want to pump up Iran.
11
psyon 1 day ago +2
The UN adopted rules saying the strait was an international water way years ago, but never did anything in the past when Iran tried to control it.  That's what caused this problem with the strait.
2
lolwatokay 1 day ago +2
It’s the US’ fault but this strait impacts trade in Europe and Asia more than for the United States. That is why it has the capacity to become a much bigger shit show.
2
fec2245 1 day ago +1
Or convoys like the Iraq-Iran was.
1
Airick39 23 hr ago +1
They weren't before this mess.
1
xondk 1 day ago -7
Alternatively, the global international community gets US and Israel to withdraw, reinstates the deal that Obama made and makes US and Israel pay restitution? Because there is only one side to blame here, and it isn't Iran, though that does not make Iran the 'good guys'
-7
ten0re 1 day ago +7
There’s no global international community to speak of. War in Ukraine has shown this very well.
7
xondk 1 day ago +2
There isn't a 'united' global international community. But Trump has proven that alliances and deals with the US despite their age, stability and benefit, mean nothing to him. The US becoming a paria might just be what unites people, because he is undermining the global stability that generally everyone has benefitted from.
2
Historical_Owl_1635 1 day ago +9
US and Isreal: No What’s step 2 of the plan? Invade the US and Isreal instead?
9
xondk 1 day ago +1
What is already happening, countries are withdrawing their gold and similar from the US. And more and more are looking into replacing the dollar. Step 2 is that continues and eventually becomes a reality, despite the pains, because not doing it will be worse and would make countries the subject of Trump's whims, and Trump has made it abundantly clear he has very little interest in the previous alliances and deals, so any benefit will eventually be gone. If countries want stability, and the US doesn't want to return to the mutual stability there was, that is the way to go.
1
Historical_Owl_1635 1 day ago +5
Who’s actually done anything?
5
xondk 1 day ago +4
Among other things France and Germany are repatriating their gold. Most do not hear/read anything about all the things being done, because they are boring, policy stuff that does not really get front page news, and that will take time to manifest. That and I wouldn't be surprised if many from the US simply do not know, it is naturally a vastly bigger topic in the EU. But you can find more information if you read about articles related to how the EU is decoupling from the US. But yes, it is not a fast process.
4
Rustic_gan123 1 day ago +2
The EU is doing little to decouple from the US and has neither the political will nor the means to continue this in the long term, with the exception of a couple of countries.
2
ruskyandrei 1 day ago +3
Problem is I don't think I see the international community able to force Israel/US to do anything they don't want.
3
xondk 1 day ago +4
The world is already looking into decoupling from the US and the dollar, with Trump's actions, unless he is reigned in, it is difficult to see how that will not continue. Course yes, that takes time and Trump isn't great at planning ahead, so he likely isn't concerned.
4
StephenHunterUK 1 day ago +3
The JCPOA expired in 2025 and sanctions were reinstated as a result. A major reason for the protests in January was because Iran's economy is in a dire state - 7.8% unemployment by their own figures for September-December 2025, with youth unemployment over 20% in a country with *a lot* of young people. It has likely gotten worse.
3
xondk 1 day ago +1
Given that Trump kneecapped JCPOA before it expired, I think that is a flawed standing point to view it from. And yes, I am aware of the reason for Iran's protests, but I do not see how that is relevant in relation to the JCPOA
1
thereoncewasahat 1 day ago +4
I agree this would be the way forward, but I doubt Iran would accept this. They've got us. A just and practical solution would be to accept the tolls, and have America, or better yet Israel, reimburse us all for their f*** up.
4
StephenHunterUK 1 day ago +1
I'd have no objection to restitution for damage to civilian infrastructure, as long as Iran pays for its own damage to that.
1
xondk 1 day ago +1
While I get your point, in this case given this was exactly known to happen if Iran was attacked, because they cannot conventionally strike back against the US, I would see most placing that bill on the US as well. All that has happened in terms of Iran's fighting back, is exactly what everyone knew would happen, because that's what they got to work with, making the war costly in other ways, since they cannot effectively hit the US directly.
1
Standard-School5236 1 day ago +62
Bruh, Trump literally changes his mind every day. Mar 3: "We won the war." Mar 7: "We defeated Iran." Mar 9: "We must attack Iran." Mar 9: "The war is ending almost completely, and very beautifully." Mar 11: “You never like to say too ⁠early you won. We won. In ​the first hour it was over.” Mar 12: "We did win, but we haven't won completely yet." Mar 13: "We won the war." Mar 14: "Please help us." Mar 15: "If you don't help us, I will certainly remember it." Mar 16: "Actually, we don't need any help at all." Mar 16: "I was just testing to see who's listening to me." Mar 16: "If NATO doesn't help, they will suffer something very bad." Mar 17: "We neither need nor want NATO's help." Mar 17: "I don't need Congressional approval to withdraw from NATO." Mar 18: "Our allies must cooperate in reopening the Strait of Hormuz." Mar 19: "US allies need to get a grip - step up and help open the Strait of Hormuz." Mar 20: "NATO are cowards." Mar 21: "The Strait of Hormuz must be protected by the countries that use it. We don't use it, we don't need to open it." Mar 22: "This is the last time. I will give Iran 48 hours. Open the strait" Mar 22: "Iran is Dead" Mar 23: "We had very good and productive talks with Iran." Mar 24: "We’re making progress." Mar 24: "[Iran] gave us a present and the ⁠present arrived today, and it was a very big present, ​worth a tremendous amount of money." Mar 25: “They gave us a present and the present arrived today. And it was a very big present worth a tremendous amount of money. I’m not going to tell you what that present is, but it was a very significant prize.” Mar 26: "Make a deal, or we’ll just keep blowing them away." Mar 27: "We don’t have to be there for NATO." Mar 28: No major quote Mar 29: Claimed talks were progressing Mar 30: "Open the Strait of Hormuz immediately, or face devastating consequences." Mar 31: Claimed a deal was "very close" and that Iran would "do the right thing" Apr 1: "We’ll see what happens very soon." Apr 2: Repeated that a deal was likely, while warning of continued strikes if not Apr 3: "Something big is going to happen." Apr 4: Said Iran must comply "immediately" or face further consequences. Apr 5: "Open the fuckin' Strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah." Apr 7: “A whole civilization will die tonight” if Iran does not make a deal Apr 11: Said U.S.-Iran Deal ‘Doesn’t Matter’ Because U.S. Has Already Won
62
Guyfromthepast_ 23 hr ago +17
Apr 11: The United States Navy is going to to establish a blockade to stop any ships entering or leaving the strait - THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER. PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
17
khabijenkins 17 hr ago +1
Man can Dems make this a shirt and sell for campaign financing?
1
Ultra_Metal 23 hr ago +1
Yes, he's running a deception campaign to confuse the regime, and the side effect is that the rest of the world gets confused too.
1
orangeflyingmonkey_ 22 hr ago +8
Lol y'all think he's still playing 4D chess? It's a toddler-with-crayons level of intelligence here.
8
Ultra_Metal 21 hr ago +1
Trump is an idiot. The people making the plans are not. Trump is an actor playing a role (like Reagan). He is not the mastermind.
1
InsensitiveClod76 19 hr ago +1
He might even be confused himself. Old people sometimes get a bit confused.
1
Frodojj 21 hr ago +1
Why did you put "no major quote" in there? Just skip the day, like you did at the end.
1
ManikArcanik 1 day ago +10
Oh well if the UN says so...
10
jjax2003 1 day ago +9
Or what?
9
jugglerofcats 22 hr ago +2
Or it'll set a precedent that results in the strait staying closed forever. Iran was able to shut down traffic through the strait with a handful of drone attacks early into the war. Every one of the 10-15 something nations surrounding the strait could easily replicate the low cost attack until their demands to get a cut of the toll are met, or the toll is abandoned altogether. They're also making this demand in lieu of compensation - but remember, all the nations they launched missles and drones at suffered millions in damages and costs for interceptors themselves. Iran's is not a realistic demand to begin with - they are only using it in negotiations because it was one of the major factors that affected the world economy and by including it, they're looking to be *somehow* made whole (while everyone else is left hanging). I know everyone hates the UN and their lip service but imagine if other nations elsewhere began using low cost drone warfare to erect tolls or whatever demands on strategically important areas.
2
Far-Association5438 15 hr ago +2
Lol none of that will happen. The gulf states make money off of tourism and oil, neither of which benefit from a war. It all comes down to if these countries are willing to pay a fee or have no money at all.
2
kimapesan 1 day ago +13
Or else what?
13
Street_Anon 1 day ago +3
And you think Arab countries will even allow this? No!
3
kimapesan 1 day ago +13
What will they do about it that we haven’t tried?
13
Keeltoodeep 1 day ago +2
They will blockade Iran at Oman gulf and Kharg and build more bypass
2
Vetril 23 hr ago +3
Bypass where, exactly? How? How fast?
3
speminfortunam 1 day ago +41
Suspect that for all of the idiocy of US and Israel in starting this, if Iran refuses to open the strait to free navigation, we'll start to see a broader coalition forming to take levels of action against the regime. This is painful in the west and crippling in a lot of Asia and the RoW atm, and it'll only get exponentially worse. No one else wanted this war but it'll get to the point where the least bad option is to join a coalition or a hierarchy of coalitions to overthrow the regime, annihilate the IRGC, and keep the strait and gulf open. If it takes a WW2-level effort then so be it. The world can't function for long with that strait closed. Iran is depending on global grace as other nations are okay with them using this leverage to put Trump back in his box, but that grace won't last.. Alternative is if after the Midterms, if we get that far, the Dems hold a big enough majority to get rid of Trump, and Vance can pull the plug without so much collateral damage on himself going forward.
41
DogTough5144 1 day ago +25
Or, they’ll start working out their own deals with Iran separate from the USA.
25
BeneficialTrash6 22 hr ago +4
That is why the US is now blockading the strait. To stop Chinese ships and other nations from collaborating with Iran.
4
Mayor__Defacto 22 hr ago +3
Hence the US Blockade to prevent that being a viable option.
3
FudgeAtron 1 day ago +4
>Or, they’ll start working out their own deals with Iran separate from the USA. Why would that work? People are talking about this as if it's never happened before, this used to be pretty regular and the fact that it doesn't work is part of the reason that we stopped doing it. Charging tolls for crossing a strait doesn't really work because you still have to stop every single ship and check that they did actually pay. How much money do you think Iran has to stop every single ship? Or do you think they'll just go the cheaper route and bomb any ship that doesn't comply? And then what happens when they bomb a ship that did actually have permission? And what if private companies start buying and hiring weapons to defend themselves from the Iranians? Are we now going to permit private institutions to arm themselves with State weaponry? The more you pull out the idea of charging tolls at Hormuz the more insane it becomes.
4
shikana64 1 day ago
You wrote this like we are in 1626 and not 2026. Wire the money, tell the name of the ship. Money is not in the account,.you don't get to pass. Ships themselves as well are not that stupid. I am aware what this means for maritime law and I know this would be a step back but at this when US, Russia and both NATO and UN have essentially thrown international law in the trash, I think Iran should do this and start getting some money to rebuild their country.
0
FudgeAtron 1 day ago +5
>Wire the money, tell the name of the ship. Money is not in the account,.you don't get to pass. Oh it's so simple, people will tell the truth! You don't think ships trying to run a blockade will lie about their identity? Furthermore why should Iran trust you? Perhaps you did pay, but they still need to check you any way to make sure, that you are actually the ship you say you are, that you're actually carrying the goods you say you are, and that you are not a cover for something else. If they fail to check every ship, then some ships will get through without paying, and once the capitalists sniff out that it's cheaper to lie, they will, and once enough of them start doing it Iran will implement full checks. Just read history, this is how it always goes. Even beyond that to accept the toll is to accept the legitimacy of Iran firing on civilian shipping because they didn't pay them. Well why shouldn't Iranian ship stop every ship coming in and out? And why shouldn't the commander demand bribes to let you pass? And why shouldn't he demand bribes from people who have paid? And what if you don't pay the bribe? Well he says you lied and bombs you and takes your goods. Now you have Iran committing state sanctioned piracy, ands we're back at the 18th century. The reasons for these laws aren't morality, they're practicality. It's simply bad practice to allow a country to attack civilian shipping for money, it always leads to an increase in piracy and smuggling. The reasons these laws were created in the first place was because those countries had seen this cycle play out multiple times and knew that it always led to piracy. The reason we have minimal piracy today is not because modern technology makes piracy impossible but because we heavily penalize policies which create piracy.
5
Mayor__Defacto 22 hr ago +3
Not only that, but once you accept the toll, you open yourself up to arbitrary increases in the toll.
3
shikana64 19 hr ago +1
>Oh it's so simple, people will tell the truth! You don't think ships trying to run a blockade will lie about their identity I am not a sailor but I know each ship has a visible name and can be identified? You don't need to ask them anything. The rest why would they need to check what the ship is carrying and whatnot? Why wouldn't a civilian ship pay? >Now you have Iran committing state sanctioned piracy, ands we're back at the 18th century. You made a lot of IFs for this argument... >The reasons these laws were created in the first place was because those countries had seen this cycle play out multiple times and knew that it always led to piracy. Oh I know. And I know maritime law is the most defined and agreed upon. But it looks like we don't care about international law anymore. It seems very hypocritical to now bully Iran they should.
1
FudgeAtron 18 hr ago +1
>I am not a sailor but I know each ship has a visible name and can be identified? That can be quite simply painted over and changed, there's a scene in lord of War with Nicolas cage where they do just that. I don't know how common that is, but that could happen. >You don't need to ask them anything. You need to check that the ship has actually paid, they'd probably issue with some sort of pass and you show that to an officer who boards your ship from a small boat. >The rest why would they need to check what the ship is carrying and whatnot? Iran would want to know that ships were not bringing weapons for American bases. >It seems very hypocritical to now bully Iran they should. Letting them close it, is one thing, letting them charge a toll is another.
1
psyon 1 day ago -1
They shouldn't be making deals with Iran.  The UN recogizes the strait as an international water way that is free for use.  Making deals with Iran for usage goes against the maritime rules that have been adopted by most of the international community.
-1
shikana64 1 day ago +8
I think the international community has a hard time preaching about international law to Iran ATM.
8
Funktordelic 1 day ago +2
Iran has already shown countries can use the Strait for shipping and have safe passage (like it granted France, Spain and others) as long as you do not support this war - so access to the straight is just an excuse. The only reason countries are being asked for support is so they can seize control of the Strait for oil assets and protect the petro dollar from the Yuan, and the “Greater Israel” colonial quest / killing spree that continues (with Türkiye in their sights next). Where does one draw the line with this bullshit and end the cycle of US and Israeli imperialism?
2
AGIwhen 1 day ago -7
Or the world will put pressure on America and Israel to end their attacks and pay Iran reparations for war damage. America and Israel started this war, they can pay for the damage it has caused.
-7
speminfortunam 1 day ago +11
It all hinges on what exactly Iran say about the strait. They need to state clearly and unambiguously, and have all their various diplomatic voices speak in unison, that their desire is to restore full and unimpeded freedom of navigation, but need x, y, z *reasonable* conditions to be met and guaranteed. Atm it seems like Iran are implying they can maintain this status quo indefinitely, regardless of what else they agree, as an immutable outcome of what has already happened, and are taking liberties with third nations' willingness to let this drag on. Iran don't own the navigability of strait to use as a bargaining chip - the right to transit safely and freely belongs to the world.
11
balooaroos 1 day ago +2
So the options are do what's cheapest/easiest like he said, or do what's "right" like you're suggesting. Wanna bet which option they'll go with?
2
StevenK71 1 day ago +1
Trump won't uphold any deals, so why make a deal with him?
1
Historical_Owl_1635 1 day ago +1
And if America and Israel say no?
1
Carbonga 1 day ago +10
Ah. Thank you for wheighing in. I was wondering what the UN maritime chief would think about this. Nice pin, though!
10
DramaticDirection292 21 hr ago +3
Kind of ironic because 40 days ago they didn’t
3
Heizard 1 day ago +13
UN chief might as well be chief of troop of clowns, because this is his level of authority at this day and age.
13
faffc260 1 day ago +8
this has been his level of authority of all time, the UN is there to validate the actions of other nations when the security council agrees on something and with almost everything the UNSC has opposing forces with permenant veto powers.
8
FentFloyd69 1 day ago +20
It would be an extremely bad precedent. Not to mention completely illegal.
20
fec2245 1 day ago +5
And would require a credible threat of sinking civilian ships.
5
nishitd 1 day ago -2
Wars are also illegal. I don't see UN telling USA to stop attacking countries either
-2
Xvalidation 1 day ago +7
Of course the UN [does tell them to stop](https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statements/2026-02-28/statement-the-secretary-general-iran)
7
Fit-Cable1547 23 hr ago +2
Trump: Hold my diet Coke.
2
Hicklethumb 23 hr ago +2
This already aged poorly
2
karenskygreen 21 hr ago +2
Well then,.if the UN maritime chief says Iran must not charge tolls then they better stop, or he will write a sternly written letter to the UN security council who will do nothing. Iran better listen if it knows what's good for them
2
Icy-Ask3943 21 hr ago +2
Since when did Iran start to listen to UN on any rights and wrongs ? They follow their own rulebook, claiming to be Quran but clearly not.
2
Moist-Fortune6277 1 day ago +3
it was free before US and Israel bombed Iran, if anything US and Israel should pay for the toll.
3
arsinoe716 1 day ago +7
Well, someone has to pay for that unwarranted war.
7
K2e2vin 1 day ago +3
It seems pretty obvious Iran is retaliating against USA and it's allies.  I think Iran is willing to drop this if other countries distance themselves from USA.  Before being attacked they've shown they're willing to work and follow agreements, and trying to dissuade alliances between other countries is nothing new, the West does it all the time with Russia, etc.   It could be simpler than that;  maybe they're pressuring US allies to step in and stop USA from threatening and attacking them!
3
_aviemore_ 1 day ago
Why does UN exist when nothing happens if an aggressor makes an aggression. Russia invading Ukraine. USA bombing X, Israel "special op-ing" Y. 
0
balooaroos 1 day ago +9
Huh? The UN does talking. That's it's purpose. It's not the police or a court or something. It's debate club for diplomats.
9
GeshtiannaSG 1 day ago +2
It does a lot more, including sanctions and casus belli for “interventions”.
2
PleasantWay7 20 hr ago +2
The point of the UN is to stop the nuclear powers from popping off nukes. You can’t force those countries to do anything because then they might start popping off nukes.
2
zsaleeba 1 day ago +1
It's a shame that he has literally zero jurisdiction over that
1
Over-Willingness-933 1 day ago +1
Maybe the UN should vote on this and start passing resolutions against Iran.
1
My3CentsWorth 23 hr ago +1
The difficulty is that they are doing the toll in the place of reparations for the damage from US/Israel's attacks/war crimes. There is almost zero chance of either of the assclowns in charge of those countries taking responsibility. So yea, that leaves us all paying a toll because we're not taking any action against the criminals who caused this shit show.
1
Ultra_Metal 23 hr ago +1
The Islamic Republic is violating international law by charging tolls and blocking the strait. This evil regime violates international law all the time. In addition to this, they also commit war crimes by attacking Arab nations that were not involved in the war, by supporting terrorism, and by using human shields.
1
Cristina_wench 22 hr ago +1
The head of the UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) has made it clear that: Ships have a right to free passage through international straits like Hormuz So charging “tolls” for transit would not be legally acceptable under international maritime rules It would set a “dangerous precedent” for global shipping routes � Reuters
1
TheNewOP 19 hr ago +1
Why doesn't the UN send their army to reopen the strait? Oh wait, they don't have one.
1
Aramis444 19 hr ago +1
Iran must be feeling so devastated by this news!
1
TwentyCharactersShor 7 hr ago +1
Can the US?
1
solblurgh 22 hr ago +1
Israel must not attack other countries also, but here we are
1
Minimum_Run_890 1 day ago +1
Neither should the USA
1
Hashbeez 1 day ago +1
US and Israel going to attack Iran again
1
← Back to Board