US President Donald Trump has proposed imposing a 20 per cent fee on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, potentially adding approximately $34 million to the cost of each supertanker voyage. This move marks a dramatic shift from previous US policy, which had opposed such levies in the strategic waterway. The proposal comes amid heightened tensions between the United States and Iran, following recent military actions and retaliatory strikes. The proposal was outlined in a social media post by Trump, who referred to the US as the “guardian of the Hormuz Strait” and argued that the nation deserved reimbursement for providing security to vessels traversing the critical chokepoint. The strait, located between the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, serves as a vital artery for global oil and gas trade, with roughly a fifth of the world’s supply passing through it daily. The new fee would apply to all cargo transported via the strait, with estimates suggesting a single voyage by a very large crude carrier (VLCC), which typically transports two million barrels of oil, could incur a charge of around $34 million. The financial implications of the proposed toll are staggering. At current oil prices, a single shipment valued at approximately $170 million would face a 20 per cent levy, significantly impacting the profitability of shipping operations. Analysts have pointed out that such a high percentage is unprecedented in modern maritime history. Alisha Chhangani of the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Centre noted that the figure calculates to about $32 million per voyage, while Amena Bakr of Kpler highlighted that even a 20 per cent rate at lower oil prices would equate to roughly $16 per barrel, a sum deemed unaffordable for many Gulf nations. The proposal lacks clear enforcement mechanisms, according to Chhangani, who emphasized that the White House has not detailed how the fee would be collected or enforced. Questions remain regarding whether payments would be required prior to entry into the strait, whether they would be tied to naval escorts, or how they might be distributed among various stakeholders such as shipping companies, insurers, and port authorities. These uncertainties suggest that the plan remains largely theoretical at this stage. The idea of applying tolls to a natural waterway contradicts established international maritime law, which prohibits the imposition of fees on straits used for international navigation. The United Nations' International Maritime Organization has stated that there is no legal basis for such charges, reinforcing the notion that the proposal represents a radical departure from existing norms. Unlike the Suez and Panama canals, which operate as man-made waterways with well-established toll systems, the Strait of Hormuz has never been subject to similar levies. Iran, meanwhile, has previously attempted to impose its own toll system, known as the “Tehran tollbooth,” which charged around $2 per barrel. This system, managed by an entity linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, required vessels to pass through a designated corridor near Larak Island and paid fees ranging up to $2 million per VLCC cargo. While some shipowners reportedly complied, the system was criticized for being opaque and burdensome. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi responded to Trump’s proposal with a statement on X, acknowledging that compensation for security services is justified but noting that a 20 per cent rate is excessive. The potential implementation of the US toll system has sparked concern among Gulf states, particularly the UAE, which opposes any form of toll collection in the strait. The UAE, along with Saudi Arabia, maintains that the waterway should remain open under international maritime law. However, countries like Kuwait and Iraq, which rely heavily on the strait for their energy exports, may find themselves with little choice but to comply with the new requirement. Meanwhile, the broader geopolitical landscape continues to evolve, with ongoing military confrontations and diplomatic efforts shaping the future of regional stability.
7 reports
The NationalParty-alignedConservativeFactual 95Objective 808 days agoUS President Donald Trump has proposed imposing a 20% fee on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, potentially costing each supertanker approximately $34 million per voyage. This marks a shift from previous US opposition to such fees. The proposal comes amid renewed US naval restrictions on Iranian vessels using the strategic waterway, which handles about 20% of global oil and gas trade. Experts argue the fee is excessively high compared to historical rates, noting no precedent for tolls on natural straits. While Iran previously imposed lower fees, its system faced compliance issues. The US plan lacks enforcement details, raising concerns about practical implementation.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the US proposal as a justified action by the 'guardian' of the strait, emphasizing US sovereignty and fairness. It highlights criticism from experts and Iran but presents the US stance more prominently. The focus on Trump's executive action and the potential economic impact aligns
Why factuality (95): The article provides detailed information about the attack on UAE tankers, including casualties, vessel names, and responses from UAE authorities. It aligns with cross-source reports from other articles about the incident and the impact on oil prices. No primary source is cited, but the details matc
Why objectivity (80): The article maintains a neutral tone, reporting facts without overtly expressing opinion. However, it emphasizes the severity of the attack and the condemnation from UAE authorities, which may subtly frame the incident as a serious threat.
Gulf NewsParty-aligned🔒CenterFactual 85Objective 756 days agoThe article explains the U.S. economic sanctions against Iran, commonly referred to as a 'blockade,' detailing their historical context, mechanisms, and potential future implications. It outlines how these sanctions aim to limit Iran's access to global financial systems, restrict trade, and curb its nuclear program. The piece discusses the impact on Iranian economy, international relations, and the broader geopolitical landscape. It also speculates on possible outcomes such as increased tensions, diplomatic efforts, or shifts in regional alliances.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced overview of the U.S. sanctions against Iran, explaining both the rationale behind them and their effects without overtly favoring either side. While it acknowledges the U.S. perspective on security concerns and non-proliferation, it also highlights the economic and政治
Why factuality (85): The article provides a nuanced discussion of the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz, quoting experts and detailing recent incidents. It accurately represents the situation and includes relevant context about US policy and Iranian actions.
Why objectivity (75): The article maintains a balanced approach, discussing both the risks faced by commercial vessels and the strategic considerations of the US government. However, it places greater emphasis on the challenges faced by shipping companies.
Khaleej TimesParty-alignedCenterFactual 85Objective 757 days agoThe article explains the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway through which a significant portion of the world's oil supply passes. It discusses the geopolitical dynamics involving Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and other regional powers, highlighting their competing interests in controlling or influencing the region. The piece also mentions the role of international actors such as the United States and NATO in maintaining security in the area. While the article provides background on the history and significance of the strait, it does not take a clear stance on who has the most control, focusing instead on the complex interplay of regional and global interests.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced overview of the geopolitical tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz without overtly favoring any particular nation or ideology. It highlights multiple perspectives and the involvement of various stakeholders without taking a definitive position on who 'really'控 the
Why factuality (85): Article discusses the geopolitical control of the Strait of Hormuz without citing specific sources. While it provides general information about the strategic importance of the strait, there is no primary source document to verify claims about who controls it. Cross-source consensus among other artic
Why objectivity (75): The article uses neutral language when discussing the control of the strait, but it leans slightly toward presenting the US perspective by implying that the US is the guardian of the strait. This subtle bias affects objectivity.
The NationalParty-alignedCenterFactual 80Objective 754 days ago Cartoon for July 18, 2026The article features a cartoon titled 'Cartoon for July 18, 2026' published by The National (United Arab Emirates). The cartoon appears to focus on a geopolitical issue related to the Strait of Hormuz, referencing recent tensions involving shipping and potential conflicts between Iran and the United States. It is part of a series of opinion-based cartoons by Shadi, who addresses various international issues such as the US-Iran agreement, Lebanon-Israel talks, and regional security concerns. The piece does not provide detailed commentary but uses visual satire to highlight ongoing diplomatic and military challenges in the region.
Bias read (Center): The cartoon presents a visual commentary on geopolitical tensions without overtly favoring any specific political ideology. While the subject matter involves sensitive international relations, the framing remains neutral, focusing on depicting the situation rather than taking a clear ideological立场.
Why factuality (80): The article provides detailed market analysis and expert commentary on oil price movements, referencing specific strikes and their impact on trade routes. It cites analysts and offers a clear explanation of the economic implications, aligning with the cross-source consensus.
Why objectivity (75): The tone remains focused on economic impacts and market trends, avoiding strong political commentary. However, it does emphasize the severity of the situation, which may influence interpretation.
The NationalParty-alignedCenterFactual 75Objective 708 days ago Iran war latest: Explosions reported in southern Iran as official says four sites in Bushehr struckThe article reports on recent developments in the ongoing conflict between Iran and various international actors, including the United States and Gulf nations. Missile strikes were reported in southern Iran, with officials confirming that four sites in Bushehr were targeted. Meanwhile, the UK Maritime Trade Organisation confirmed that a missile strike hit a tanker off Oman's coast. Bahrain's air defenses intercepted Iranian missile and drone attacks, while the U.S. concluded a third consecutive night of airstrikes on Iran. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) claimed that two tankers were struck after they attempted to navigate a mined route. The UAE also reported that two tankers were hit by Iranian missiles. President Trump stated that Gulf countries would reimburse the U.S. for protection services and criticized a proposed cargo fee by Hapag-Lloyd as 'fundamentally wrong.' Additionally, Trump expressed concerns over potential U.S. control of the Strait of Hormuz and threatened increased bombing if attacks continued.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a range of perspectives and actions from multiple parties involved in the conflict, including Iran, the U.S., Gulf states, and international organizations. It includes statements from both Iranian officials and foreign leaders, as well as reports from different sources such as '
Why factuality (75): The article covers a range of developments, including US strikes, diplomatic efforts, and reactions from various countries. It includes specific figures and quotes, though some details are presented without explicit sourcing. It generally reflects the cross-source consensus on the evolving situation
Why objectivity (70): While the article presents a variety of viewpoints, including statements from Trump and other leaders, it occasionally frames events in a way that emphasizes the instability and uncertainty of the situation, potentially influencing reader perception.
The NationalParty-alignedCenterFactual 50Objective 605 days ago Cartoon for July 17, 2026The article features a cartoon titled 'Shadi's take on the dilemma facing shipping in the Strait of Hormuz' published by The National on July 17, 2026. The cartoon addresses concerns related to shipping activities in the strategic waterway between the Arabian Gulf and Iran. It appears as part of a series of opinion pieces by Shadi, focusing on geopolitical issues such as U.S.-Iran tensions, regional security, and international agreements. Other recent cartoons in the series discuss topics like the U.S. ending daylight saving time, potential U.S. blockades over Hormuz, Iraq's anti-corruption efforts, and diplomatic developments involving Lebanon and Israel.
Bias read (Center): The cartoon focuses on a geopolitical issue (shipping in the Strait of Hormuz), which is inherently politically charged due to its implications for regional stability and international trade. However, the piece does not appear to take a clear ideological stance or emphasize specific political groups
Why factuality (50): This item appears to be a cartoon and not a news article, so it cannot be assessed for factual content. It likely serves as commentary rather than objective reporting.
Why objectivity (60): As a cartoon, it is not intended to be an impartial news source and thus cannot be evaluated for objectivity.
The NationalParty-alignedCenter14 hr. ago Cartoon for July 22, 2026The article features a cartoon titled 'Shadi's take on Gaza's crumbling ceasefire' published by The National on July 22, 2026. The cartoon appears within the Opinion section, which includes other satirical takes on various global issues such as the UK's new Prime Minister, the US-Iran deal, the football World Cup final, and geopolitical tensions involving the Strait of Hormuz and Iraq. The piece is part of a series of opinion-based cartoons that comment on current affairs, including conflicts in the Middle East and international relations.
Bias read (Center): The cartoon focuses on the situation in Gaza and the broader Middle East conflict, which is inherently politicized. However, the piece does not appear to take a clear ideological stance or exhibit overtly biased framing. It is presented as a commentary rather than an advocacy, and the tone remains客观
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
Become a Supporter
AE
