Allegedly, there is a Peace Deal with Iran. While the Memo of Understanding has not yet been released; there is arguing over whether Iran will be able to collect a fee for the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranians argue that while it is illegal to charge a toll, they can collect a fee for services rendered. What charmers those IRGC types are! The arguing is mainly in the New York Times another group of charmers!
As our Deanna told you yesterday, the Peace Deal (sketchy as it is) is not done yet. The paperwork won’t be signed until Friday and no one has released what is in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
Never mind any of that. Let the arguments begin. There seems to be a serious lack of imagination among the leaders of the world. By the way did you the maroons at the G7 yesterday? Trump did:
Trumps face earlier at the G7 says it all. pic.twitter.com/Eznoi6AVBX
— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) June 15, 2026
Iran has been bedeviling the world and killing our military for nearly 50 years and everyone said, “Kewl, we’ll use the Strait of Hormuz for oil shipments.” How about putting armaments in the Musandam Peninsula?
Anyhoo. Last night, the New York Times published “Iran Says Strait of Hormuz Won’t Have ‘Tolls’ but It Will Have ‘Fees’” with the subhead “Charging a toll is illegal under international law, but some fees are allowed for services. It is not clear what services Iran would provide, but there were no fees charged before the war.”:
Though President Trump declared on Sunday that the Strait of Hormuz would reopen and be “permanently toll-free,” Iran indicated on Monday that it intended to charge fees for unspecified services in the strait.
The net effect — paying for passage through the vital waterway for global energy supplies, which was not required before the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran — could add expense and complications for commercial shipping in the waterway, and set a dangerous precedent for shipping in international waters worldwide.
Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman, Esmaeil Baghaei, said on Monday that Iran was “not seeking to levy transit tolls; however, fees will be charged in exchange for the services that are provided.” But there was little indication of what services Iran would be providing. Iranian officials have said they might assess environmental charges.
So, it’s Trump’s or Netanyahu’s fault for starting this war BUT if Iran charges an environmental fee, then the New York Times will stand with Iran. Have I got that right? That is usually how the Times works.
More:
ally speaking, there is a distinction between a toll — a payment for passage — and fees for actual services rendered, for example providing waste services at a port. Fees can be legal in certain contexts but a toll in the Strait of Hormuz would not be, maritime law experts say, and requiring payment for ships to use a waterway that has long been free would not be rendered legal simply by calling it a fee.
The notion of ships paying to travel through the strait initially came up after the United States and Israel attacked Iran in late February and the Iranians responded with retaliatory strikes on commercial ships in regional waters. In March, Iranian officials said they would start to charge ships traveling in the waterway, and by May, Iran had established the Persian Gulf Strait Authority, which it said would manage “safe passage permits.”
“Safe passage permits” sounds like paying protection. The PGSA (Persian Gulf Strait Authority) sounds like the maritime equivalent of the IRGC. The Mafia had something like this going on, so I have been told.
The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete. Congratulations to all! I hereby fully authorize the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and…authorize…immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade…
June 14, 2026, 3:29 PMhttps://t.co/ZQX89rEKMM pic.twitter.com/RWgcvwjfPB
— Shannon Ford 🇺🇸 (@shannonfordUSA) June 16, 2026
Iran and its neighbor across the strait, Oman, in May discussed a ship payment system which would be based on fees for services rendered.
But experts question whether Iran’s plan would pass legal muster.
“There is no provision in international law for a coastal state charging for passage through a natural waterway, whether you call it a toll or a fee or whatever,” said James R. Holmes, chair of maritime strategy at the Naval War College. “We do not pay to go through the Strait of Malacca or Taiwan Strait, for example.”
But Mr. Holmes noted that in artificial waterways, like the Panama Canal or Suez Canal, coastal states managing the canals do provide services and money does change hands to pay for those services and for the infrastructure.
“Hormuz is a natural waterway and as best I can tell the only service Iran would be charging for is not attacking shipping,” Mr. Holmes said. As services go, simply not striking, while desirable, “doesn’t make the grade,” he said.
Yep, paying protection. You don’t want to get a hole blown in your ship, pay us, Sincerely, the PGSA.
Really this is more of extending the ceasefire than a Peace Deal. Israel is looking to start up stuff again.
Nobody asked me, but blow the Mullahs away and problem solved. Just saying.
Wfjag says: In 1971, right after the British withdrew their military forces from the Arabian (or, is it “Persian” ?) Gulf, the Iran Imperial Navy seized 3 islands in the tanker route through the Strait. The islands are claimed by member States of the UAE. When the Mullahs took power in Iran, they continued the occupation. Unless some nation(s) decide to use force to remove the occupying Iranian forces, they are in a position to disrupt the freedom of navigation in those International waters.
In the meantime, it looks like the NYT is willing to support Imperial aggression and colonial occupation of lands belonging to weaker nations/peoples. Perhaps someone should point out that is the history of the issue.
1 Comment