+1 from me - very interesting input. One correction worth making on the Bosphorus comparison though. The $1.7m-$3.5m per tanker figure doesn't hold up because supertankers in the 200-500,000 DWT range simply don't transit the Bosphorus. The Montreux Convention and Turkish physical constraints effectively bar the largest tankers from using the straits at all. Apply the $6.70/ton rate to vessels that never actually show up, and you get a meaningless number. Per-vessel fees for ships that do transit reportedly average $15,000-$30,000 - a very different picture. That said, the broader point stands and I think it's a fair comment based one which I have chanced my viewpoint to some extent - There is clear scope to charge maintenance fees to cover navigational safety, traffic separation schemes, piracy response, pollution incidents, and aids to navigation. The Malacca littoral states make exactly this argument, and it's hard to dispute - those services cost real money and somebody has to pay for them. The critical qualifier is that any such regime has to be implemented transparently and consistently, and cannot be used as a lever. The moment fees become discretionary tools of political pressure rather than cost-recovery mechanisms, the framework's legitimacy is destroyed. That's the line between Turkey's model - whatever its imperfections - and what Iran is currently doing. So.. could it be argued that shipping could route through Omani waters to avoid Iran ??? the reality is they already do. The internationally designated traffic separation scheme runs entirely through Omani waters - or it did until those waters were mined. Originally, the inbound and outbound lanes both sit on Oman's side of the strait. That hasn't insulated anyone from Iranian pressure, because the IRGC operates throughout the strait regardless of which side of the line a vessel is on, and has a long record of intercepting ships well within what others would consider Omani waters / jurisdiction. There's also another diplomatic reality: Oman and Iran maintain pragmatic, historically warm relations. Muscat has repeatedly served as a back-channel between Tehran and Washington. So, the idea that Oman could position itself as a mechanism for circumventing Iranian fees or interdiction assumes a level of antagonism toward Tehran that doesn't 'yet' exist. Someone (in this or another thread) mentioned that the straits could be monetised between Oman and Iran - So, if the purpose is purely cost recovery for operational services, there's no fundamental objection. Navigational safety, traffic separation, pollution response, search and rescue - these are legitimate expenses and the two littoral states bear most of that burden. A transparent, jointly administered fee structure to cover those costs is defensible. The problem is getting from here to there. Any bilateral arrangement between Tehran and Muscat would need broad international buy-in to function - the major flag states and cargo interests aren't going to accept a fee regime they had no hand in shaping, particularly one that includes Iran as an administrator given the current climate. And once Iran is a revenue recipient, the temptation to use fee-setting or compliance enforcement as political leverage doesn't disappear - it just gets institutionalised. This is actually the argument for a neutral third-party authority running the collection and distribution, with Iran and Oman as beneficiaries rather than operators. Same money, far less scope for mischief - would Tehran go for that ?
Create an account or sign in to comment