Behind closed diplomatic doors, several Arab Gulf states have privately communicated to U.S. and European leaders that they do not oppose the idea of charging navigation fees for the Strait of Hormuz — a critical global energy chokepoint — but will not accept Tehran holding sway over the waterway, multiple senior U.S. and regional officials have confirmed in exclusive comments to Middle East Eye.
According to officials briefed on these confidential diplomatic exchanges, the distinction between accepting a fee structure and rejecting Iranian sovereignty over the strait is a subtle but strategically critical one, emerging at a moment of escalating bilateral tension between the U.S. and Iran that has sent shockwaves through regional energy markets.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly pushed for economic compensation in exchange for U.S. military security guarantees in the strait, a position that aligns with the quiet signals sent by Gulf Arab leaders. On a Monday earlier this year, Trump first publicly proposed a 20 percent fee on all transit, framing the U.S. as the primary guardian of the waterway and arguing that Gulf partners including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait should cover the cost of security provision.
Trump’s initial announcement immediately sparked internal division within U.S. political circles: on the same day, senior U.S. official Marco Rubio publicly contradicted the president, stating clearly that no nation has the authority to unilaterally charge tolls or fees in international waterways. Publicly, Gulf state officials including UAE representatives have joined Western powers in rejecting Iran’s attempts to impose unilateral transit fees on the strait.
By the following day, Trump walked back his original fee proposal, announcing on his social media platform Truth Social that he would replace the 20 percent reimbursement fee with trade and investment deals that Gulf states would make in the U.S. “Based on highly productive conversations with Middle East leadership, I have decided to replace the 20 percent United States Reimbursement Fee with Trade and Investment Deals that the various Gulf States will be making into the United States,” he wrote.
Even with this policy shift, the core demand for U.S. economic compensation in exchange for Strait of Hormuz security remains unchanged. Notably, Trump did not call for additional investments from Asian economies that rely heavily on Gulf energy imports, or from Greek shipping firms that control a large share of global energy transit through the waterway. He emphasized that Gulf leaders have already expressed enthusiasm for expanding their U.S. investments to record levels, a framework he frames as a reasonable alternative to an explicit fee.
“I spoke to all of them, and they would love to invest more money in the United States at record amounts, and that would be very acceptable,” Trump told reporters during a White House meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi. “This way, there’s no fee. I don’t like the concept of a fee, but at the same time, it’s not fair that we’re protecting this strait for the entire world, for China and everyone. I don’t mind protecting it for China. I don’t mind protecting it for anybody. But it’s unfair that we’re not, in some way, compensated.”
Trump’s public comments align with the anonymous assessments shared by officials, who note that for Gulf states, the financial cost of any fee or investment commitment is a small price to pay for the regional stability that guarantees unimpeded energy exports. “For some Gulf states, a toll doesn’t really matter. Financially, it is negligible to their bottom line. They want stability,” one senior U.S. official explained. “What the Gulf doesn’t want is Iran to have veto power over who can exit and enter the strait. They don’t want Iran to be able to flip a switch. The toll or payment is insignificant,” a separate senior regional official added.
Iran’s own plans to impose a unilateral service fee on strait transit have been significantly undermined in recent weeks by Oman’s decision to allow vessels to transit its territorial waters without coordinating with Tehran. Multiple U.S. and regional officials confirm that Muscat has faced intense international diplomatic pressure to break with Iran’s fee scheme, a move that strips Tehran of any potential legal justification for charging transit costs.
Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, coastal nations may claim territorial sovereignty over up to 12 nautical miles of offshore waters. At its narrowest point, the Strait of Hormuz is just 21 nautical miles wide, with only Iran and Oman as littoral states. Legal experts interviewed by MEE note that if the two nations cooperated, they could build a legal case for charging reasonable “piloting fees” or “navigation service fees” for transit. But Oman’s decision to open its territorial waters to free transit eliminates that shared legal foundation.
In response to Oman’s move and regional opposition to its control ambitions, Iran has escalated maritime aggression, targeting commercial vessels linked to Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia that were transiting Omani territorial waters. This escalation has further raised tensions in the strategic waterway, through which roughly a fifth of global oil consumption passes each day.