"A toll system would allow Iran to monetize its strategic position without the international backlash that comes from outright blockades," said Michael Knights, senior fellow at The Washington Institute. "It's coercion with a veneer of legality."

Shipping industry representatives have reacted with alarm. The International Chamber of Shipping indicated that any mandatory toll would increase transportation costs and create dangerous precedents for other strategic waterways worldwide.

"If Iran and Oman can impose tolls on the Strait of Hormuz, what prevents Turkey from doing the same in the Bosphorus, or Indonesia in the Strait of Malacca?" asked Guy Platten, secretary-general of the International Chamber of Shipping. "The entire architecture of freedom of navigation would be at risk."

The timing of the negotiations suggests Iranian confidence following its perceived success in weathering recent military exchanges with Israel and the United States. Iranian officials believe they demonstrated credible deterrence, reducing Western willingness to undertake military action that might further destabilize energy markets.

For Oman, participation in the toll arrangement presents both opportunities and risks. The sultanate has cultivated a reputation as a neutral mediator in Middle Eastern conflicts, maintaining good relations with both Iran and Western powers. Aligning too closely with Iranian maritime policy could jeopardize this carefully maintained position.

However, Oman also faces economic pressures and may view transit fees as a potential revenue source. The country's fiscal situation has been challenging, and diversifying away from oil dependency remains an ongoing struggle.

Legal experts are divided on whether the proposed toll system would withstand international scrutiny. UNCLOS permits coastal states to adopt laws for specific purposes, including environmental protection and safety of navigation, but these must not have "the practical effect of denying, hampering or impairing the right of transit passage."

"The devil is in the details," said James Kraska, professor of international law at the US Naval War College. "Reasonable fees for genuine services might be permissible. But if this is simply a revenue extraction scheme with no corresponding benefit to shipping, it would likely be challenged."

The United States has not yet issued a formal response to the reported negotiations, but naval officials have made clear that freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz remains a core American security interest. The US Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, regularly escorts commercial vessels through the strait and has clashed with Iranian forces over right-of-passage issues.

Energy markets have reacted with measured concern. While no toll has been implemented, the prospect of additional costs and potential delays has contributed to elevated risk premiums in oil futures. Traders are particularly worried about the precedent such an arrangement would establish.

For global energy consumers, particularly in Asia, the implications are substantial. Japan, South Korea, China, and India all depend heavily on oil transiting the strait. Any toll would ultimately be passed on to consumers, contributing to inflationary pressures.

The negotiations also reflect Iran's broader strategy of leveraging its geographic position to offset economic isolation from sanctions. Unable to fully access global financial systems, Tehran seeks alternative mechanisms to generate revenue and assert influence.

Whether Iran and Oman can successfully implement such a system remains uncertain. International legal challenges, potential naval confrontations, and economic backlash all pose significant obstacles. However, the very fact that such discussions are occurring demonstrates the shifting balance of power in the Persian Gulf and the growing assertiveness of regional actors seeking to reshape maritime governance on their own terms.

Chile's 'Oversized State' Myth Debunked: Data Shows Government Below OECD Average

2 hours ago