US-West Double standard on collecting fees for the straits; "necessary" and "routine" for allies, "illegal," "dangerous," and "extortionate" for adversaries.

 An update to the article ; "Sovereign water ways versus international water ways. (on straits)"

Going back to the subject of "straits" in general and  Strait of Hormuz in particular; the issue of "charging toll" for the ships using the straits has become a means of propaganda and excuse to attack Iran. Especially in straits with high volume of ships passing through the sovereign waters of a country (or more than one countries) the environmental affect to those countries cannot be disregarded. In most cases the ships are guided by the locals to prevent accidents and minimize the damage. That by itself brings about the question of an administration of any strait with associated costs to the country that has the sovereignty over the straight. Thus, they do charge a fee, not necessarily called "toll" but in some other fashion in order to cover their expenses to maintain the straits.

The Western response to Iran's Strait of Hormuz tolls is a textbook case of selective outrage: the same fees that are "necessary" and "routine" when collected by allies become "illegal," "dangerous," and "extortionate" when collected by adversaries.

If we identify a global spectrum of fees, charges, and service levies associated with major maritime straits and canals we can easily see that in practice, many countries levy various charges—such as pilotage, towing, and environmental fees—that effectively constitute a cost for passage – namely a toll.

 “Strait of Malacca” there is no direct “toll”  (it is not named as such) but  service fees apply.

“Suez Canal” there are Toll fees legally and widely accepted. Egypt charges tolls based on tonnage, type, and other factors. Average passage fees range from $200,000 to $700,000. China is a major user, with 38% of its shipping using the canal, paying around 96 billion RMB annually.

 “Panama Canal”  there are Toll fees legally and widely accepted.  Fees are based on vessel type and cargo. For a large container ship, the fee can reach $1.5 million. The canal is a major source of revenue for Panama.

 “Turkish Straits (Bosphorus & Dardanelles)”  There is no direct toll, but various service charges. Turkey charges for pilotage, towing, and other services. In 2022, Turkey increased fees significantly, with annual revenue rising from $40 million to $200 million.

 “Strait of Messina” there is a Pilotage fee for vessels over 500 GRT.  For a 40,000 GRT vessel, the passage fee is 1,699 euros.

 “Strait of Hormuz” was historically open for international shipping, and transit passage was not conditioned on the payment of any fees or charges to the coastal states. Iran and its neighboring state, Oman, provided essential services—including navigation assistance, traffic monitoring, and general security—free of charge. Iran started imposing a de facto toll, especially on oil tankers after the war started. Reports mention a fee of around $1 per barrel.

Iran's new system of imposing fees—whether called a "toll," "service charge," or "transit fee"—represents a fundamental departure from the pre-war status quo, which is why it has triggered a double standard intense international debate and opposition.

Therefore, the Iranian Parliament's reported plan to formalize a toll system is not a continuation of a past practice but the establishment of a new one

Service Charges vs. Tolls

Even where no direct toll exists, various service fees can add up. For instance, in the Strait of Malacca, Malaysia collects port dues and pilotage fees, which can be substantial for large vessels. Similarly, the Turkish Straits charge for pilotage and towing, which have been significantly increased in recent years.

While international law generally prohibits tolls on natural straits, the reality is that many countries levy a range of service charges that effectively create a cost for passage.  In the case of Iran and Strait of Hormuz, there is a clear double standard at play. While many coastal nations levy passage fees to cover navigation safety and environmental costs, Western media, and officials label Iran's lawful “toll” as "dangerous," "illegal," and an act of "extortion." This selective framing conveniently overlooks similar practices elsewhere.

Before analyzing the double standard, it is critical to understand *why* the international community has reacted so negatively to Iran's proposed toll—a point that often gets obscured in discussions.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)—which Iran has ratified—international straits used for navigation are subject to a "transit passage" regime. UNCLOS “expressly prohibits coastal states from imposing any charge for mere passage” through natural straits, though it permits fees for specific services rendered (pilotage, towage, etc.).

The Turkish Straits provide an instructive comparison: Turkey does “not” charge any toll for passage. Instead, it collects fees “only” for optional services like pilotage, towage, and anchoring—all legally permissible under UNCLOS. However, even these service fees have been heavily criticized in Chinese analyses as effectively functioning as tolls, highlighting how easily the line can be blurred.

Fees That Are Not Tolls???

The evidence supports that many countries charge what effectively amount to passage fees, albeit under different names and legal justifications:

 “Turkish Straits (Bosphorus & Dardanelles):” Turkey charges mandatory pilotage fees ($600) and escort tug fees for dangerous cargo vessels (e.g., $6,250–$11,750), plus agency fees ranging from €200–€640. Turkey has also implemented substantial fee increases, with rates now set at “$5.83 per net ton”—a 15% hike implemented in 2025. Many Chinese observers point out that these service fees function “indistinguishably from tolls”.

 The Western Reaction to Iran's “Toll “ is a Blatant Double Standard. The double standard is most starkly visible in how the same actions are framed differently depending on who is doing them.

In April 2026, during active hostilities with the US and Israel, Iran introduced a de facto transit fee system in the Strait of Hormuz, reportedly charging up to $1 per barrel (approximately $200,000 per Very Large Crude Carrier). Iranian officials have explicitly denied that any formal toll regime exists, but Iranian lawmakers and state-aligned media have framed the practice as a "new sovereign regime" during wartime. The system reportedly applies to all vessels except those flagged to "friendly" nations including China and Russia.

Western media and officials have responded  to this practice with extraordinary hostility. “The American Enterprise Institute” Argued that anyone paying Iranian "tolls" should be "designated as terror financiers," that "the Iranian military may fire upon, hijack, or destroy those who refuse," and that payment constitutes "direct financing of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps terror". The AEI further notes that Spanish and other Western European shipping companies are already paying such fees—without equivalent condemnation.

President Trump has declared that the US "will refuse passage to ships found to have paid Iran what he called 'an illegal toll'". Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the plan "unacceptable".

 “The International Maritime Organization ” has reportedly described "the toll idea in Hormuz as a dangerous precedent".

How the Same Practice Is Framed When Others Do It

The double standard becomes immediately apparent when examining how the West treats similar practices.

 “Turkish Straits Fee Hikes (2025):” When Turkey raised fees by 15% to $5.83 per net ton, Western media reported this as a routine "gradual overhaul of maritime tariffs"—”no mention of "extortion," "illegal tolls," or "terror financing."“

 “US Threats to Control Global Shipping Lanes while “the US itself has never ratified UNCLOS” and has repeatedly threatened to block strategic waterways including the “Malacca, Miyako, and Bashi straits” under the FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act. The US routinely cites "national security" to restrict navigation—something that would be called "extortion" if done by Iran.

After condemning Iran's fees, Trump publicly suggested that the US “and Iran should operate the strait as a "joint venture"“ collecting tolls together. As the Chinese analysis highlights, “"the Americans: Since you all have too much money and are willing to pay transit fees, then we don't mind you paying one more fee"“ —capturing the absurdity of condemning tolls while simultaneously trying to establish one's own.

This double standard is not accidental. Chinese media consistently argue that Western criticism of Iran's tolls is actually a cover for “US anxiety about losing maritime dominance”. When the US controlled global shipping lanes, it called its own fees "freedom of navigation"; when Iran asserts control, it's "extortion".

Moreover, the West's outrage is selective in the extreme:

 “Service fees in Turkey:” Acceptable

 “Tolls in the Suez/Panama Canals:” Acceptable, indeed profitable

“Iran's de facto toll in Hormuz:” Unacceptable and labeled "terror financing"

“US threats to block the Malacca Strait under the NDAA ” seldom mentioned in mainstream Western discourse

The International Maritime Organization has explicitly rejected the comparison to man-made canals like Suez and Panama—but those canals are actually *less* essential to global energy security than Hormuz, and their tolls are far higher, often reaching hundreds of thousands of dollars per vessel.

This is a  Double Standard Rooted in Geopolitics, Not in Principle

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the assertion of a double standard. While the international legal consensus (including China's position) rightly prohibits general transit tolls on natural straits, the “actual practice” of charging fees is widespread—from Turkey's pilotage charges to Indonesia's aborted levy proposal, from the US's threatened blockades to the man-made canal tolls that dwarf anything Iran has proposed.

The Western response to Iran's Strait of Hormuz tolls is a textbook case of selective outrage: the same fees that are "necessary" and "routine" when collected by allies become "illegal," "dangerous," and "extortionate" when collected by adversaries. As Chinese media note, the US has “not even ratified UNCLOS”, yet it presumes to lecture others on its provisions. This is not a principled defense of international law—it is a calculated geopolitical maneuver designed to maintain Western control over vital shipping lanes.

Erdogan A

May 30, 2026