Ships and boats in the Strait of Hormuz, Musandam, Oman on Wednesday.Stringer/Reuters
Massoud Karshenas is Emeritus Professor of Economics at SOAS at the University of London.
Hashem Pesaran is Emeritus Professor of Economics at the University of Southern California and Emeritus Professor of Economics and a fellow at Trinity College at the University of Cambridge.
Ron Smith is Emeritus Professor at the Birkbeck Business School at the University of London.
The disruption of shipping flows through the Strait of Hormuz has highlighted the structural fragility of the global energy system. With roughly one-quarter of the world’s seaborne oil passing through the waterway, any closure has immediate and far-reaching economic consequences.
While much of the focus has been on reopening the Strait as quickly as possible, there is also a longer-term imperative to redesign the system in such a way that reduces the risk of future disruptions.
Recent experience suggests that attempts to resolve such vulnerabilities through military intervention will be costly and ineffective. The United States spent several trillion dollars on largely unsuccessful efforts to impose a stable political settlement in comparable contexts, such as Iraq and Afghanistan; attempting the same approach in Iran would be a fool’s errand, given the country’s size and complexity.
This points to the need for solutions that rely less on coercion and more on aligning economic incentives with America and Iran’s shared interest in keeping the Strait open. That may mean institutionalizing today’s emerging arrangement, by which Iran, in coordination with the Gulf states, guarantees safe transit for a fee. Such a system would resemble the agreement under the Montreux Convention that governs passage through the Turkish-controlled Bosphorus and Dardanelles Straits.
U.S. seeks new coalition to free up ships in Hormuz, internal cable says
An Iranian toll based on Turkey’s current transit fee of US$5.83 per net ton would be about US$0.58 per oil barrel—small enough that shipping firms would not balk at the expense or seek alternative routes. But, using the pre-war daily average of 20 million barrels transiting through the Strait, such a toll would generate US$4.3 billion annually, an amount large enough to create significant incentives for Iran to facilitate and ensure safe passage.
The economic case for a service-based toll system is strong. The costs are minimal compared to the huge economic losses associated with any disruption to shipping or the enormous expenditures required to attempt to secure the Strait through sustained military operations.
Such a system could also benefit the U.S., whose existing security architecture in the Persian Gulf is expensive to maintain. Operational costs alone are estimated at US$10–30 billion per year. The full cost—including the infrastructure required to sustain deployments—is far higher, reaching US$60–120 billion annually.
These expenditures are a substantial hidden subsidy for the global economy. Oil-importing countries and Persian Gulf producers free-ride on secure transit routes but contribute little to their protection. In an era of shifting geopolitical priorities and mounting fiscal pressures, this imbalance has become harder to justify.
Trump faces Friday deadline to end Iran war or ask Congress to approve extending it
Instead of relying on an external guarantor, all the Gulf’s littoral states should establish a regional framework, supported but not dominated by foreign powers, to coordinate maritime management, joint patrols and intelligence sharing. The benefits of such a system, which can be financed by toll revenue, are clear: It would reduce costs, distribute responsibilities more evenly and encourage cooperation among countries with a shared stake in stability. It would also reduce dependence on U.S. military guarantees at a time when American strategic priorities are increasingly focused elsewhere.
Of course, skeptics will point to obvious obstacles like deep political mistrust, institutional weaknesses and the absence of a comprehensive legal framework. These challenges are not insurmountable. Comparable arrangements have emerged in similarly complex environments, often driven by necessity.
None of this implies that external powers should disengage entirely. Rather, their role should evolve from primary enforcer to facilitator and guarantor of a multilateral system. The goal is not to replace one form of dominance with another, but to build a more balanced and resilient security framework.
The Strait of Hormuz is a cornerstone of the global energy system. For many years, the U.S. effectively managed its security, but this arrangement has become economically inefficient and politically asymmetrical in terms of responsibilities and burden-sharing. A cooperative regional security regime funded by transit charges offers a promising alternative that would benefit oil exporters, shippers and consumers.
With coercion unlikely to succeed, persuasion becomes essential. Iran has both the capacity and the incentive to agree to a regional framework that ensures the safety of shipping in the Strait. Such a framework would align that incentive with America’s interests (and those of the broader international community), while also reducing the region’s external dependency and, perhaps most importantly, enhancing long-term energy stability for everyone else.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2026.www.project-syndicate.org