By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The ongoing conflict has severely restricted maritime traffic, reducing tanker passage through the strait to a mere trickle. Since Tuesday, only 15 vessels have successfully navigated the passage, a stark contrast to the pre-war average of nearly 140 daily trips. This disruption significantly impacts the global supply chain, as the strait previously facilitated the transport of a fifth of the world’s oil and gas, leaving almost 800 ships, many laden with cargo, stranded in the Gulf.
Read the original article here
The idea is being floated that tankers should simply refuse to pay any kind of toll to Iran for passage through the Strait of Hormuz. This suggestion, however, seems to overlook the very real and costly consequences that such a refusal could entail. While the sentiment behind avoiding payment to a nation with a contentious relationship might be understandable, the practicalities of maritime trade in a volatile region demand a more pragmatic approach.
The core of the issue lies in the control Iran effectively wields over this vital waterway. It’s being pointed out that with relatively inexpensive assets, like a $50,000 drone, Iran can exert significant influence and pose a credible threat to shipping. This isn’t a hypothetical scenario; it’s a demonstrated capability that makes the idea of simply sailing through without acknowledging Iran’s presence seem incredibly risky. The argument being made is that until this fundamental control is somehow neutralized or countered, refusing to pay is not a viable strategy for safe passage.
Moreover, the financial ramifications of not paying the toll are substantial and extend far beyond the fee itself. The cost of a single tanker, which can easily reach $120 million, is just the starting point. Then you have the value of the oil cargo, potentially hundreds of millions more, and the immense costs associated with a potential incident. This includes not only the loss of the vessel and its cargo but also the complex and expensive operations involved in crew recovery and rehabilitation, not to mention the long-term revenue loss from the ship being out of commission until a replacement can be built. Add to this the inevitable surge in insurance premiums across an operator’s entire fleet due to the increased risk assessment, and the calculation becomes starkly clear.
There’s a strong sentiment that cargo owners are the primary drivers in these decisions, and they are more than willing to absorb reasonable costs to ensure their goods reach their destination. When considering that the current proposed fee equates to roughly $1 per barrel of oil, a minuscule fraction of the overall value, the choice becomes rather straightforward for those with a financial stake in the cargo. A large tanker can carry up to 2 million barrels, and for an additional $2 million, the cargo owner can secure the safe delivery of a shipment valued at potentially over $100 million. This perspective highlights that paying a small fee for guaranteed passage is often preferable to the catastrophic losses associated with an attack.
The current situation in the Strait of Hormuz is also being attributed, in large part, to past geopolitical decisions. The argument is made that the freedom of navigation has been significantly undermined by actions that have destabilized the region, and that current actions by Iran are a response to these destabilizing forces. Some believe that the US and Israel, by initiating what they deem an “illegal war” and driving up global oil prices, should be the ones bearing the costs, perhaps even paying a toll to the international community for the disruption they’ve caused.
The notion of urging tankers to take on the significant risks and financial burdens of not paying the toll is seen as unrealistic, especially when the urgers are safely situated far from the potential danger zone. The idea of demanding safe passage without acknowledging the reality of the power dynamic in the strait is viewed as out of touch. The comparison is drawn to situations where individuals or entities with no military capacity might urge others to confront a well-armed adversary without providing any means of defense.
The discussion also touches on the broader implications, suggesting that if a toll is established for the Strait of Hormuz, it could set a precedent for other strategically vital waterways like the South China Sea or the Taiwan Strait. This raises concerns about the future of global maritime trade and the potential for increased friction and instability. The complexity is further illustrated by the idea that some parties might even benefit from prolonged conflict, making peaceful resolutions less appealing to them.
Ultimately, the prevailing sentiment suggests that while the idea of not paying a toll might sound appealing on principle, the practical realities of the Strait of Hormuz make it an exceptionally dangerous gamble. The costs associated with a single incident far outweigh the proposed fee. For cargo owners, the choice between a nominal fee for safe passage and the potential destruction of a multi-million dollar asset, not to mention the grave risk to human life, is often not a difficult one. The consensus seems to be that, in this specific context, paying a fee for safety is the most economically rational and responsible decision for all parties involved, especially when contrasted with the catastrophic financial and human cost of the alternative.