Oman Tells UN It Opposes Hormuz Transit Fees

Oman has made its position clear at the UN: it does not support imposing transit fees on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. The stance matters because the strait is one of the world’s most sensitive shipping lanes, and any suggestion of a fee immediately raises legal, diplomatic, and commercial concerns.

Message of Muscat goes beyond politics. It is also a legal point, based on the rule that ships passing through international straits are supposed to enjoy passage without paying any toll for doing so. In raising such a point at the United Nations, Oman is trying to make it clear that the matter should be seen as a maritime law issue.

What Oman said

Foreign Minister Badr Al-Busaidi was the clearest voice in the reporting.

“Future arrangements regarding the Strait do not entail the imposition of any transit fees,”

he said, according to coverage of the Bahrain meeting of Gulf foreign ministers. That statement is the centerpiece of Oman’s response and the clearest rejection of a toll-based model.

Some other sources have also noted Oman’s assertion that it does not condone any imposition of costs merely because of transit through the Strait of Hormuz. Nevertheless, Oman has allowed space for negotiations concerning maritime services, and it is within this area that the debate becomes more technical. The position of Oman is that there cannot be any toll for transit, but there can be discussion about certain costs of service provision.

The legal line

The key point distinguishing transit fees from service fees in the story is the crux of the matter. In the case of transit fees, these can operate as the cost for using the strait as a passageway, whereas service fees are charged only for a particular service provided by the strait, whether it is pilotage, tugboats, emergency help or pollution prevention. According to the sources, Oman is basing its position on the international law of the sea and the concept of transit passage. Within this doctrine, a coastal state has no right to impose charges on ships transiting through an international strait. Therefore, the statement of Oman has legal implications for international shipping beyond the Gulf. It is also pointed out in the report that the secretary-general of the International Maritime Organization said that there is no legal ground for applying discriminatory transit fees or conditions.

Why Hormuz is so sensitive

The Strait of Hormuz is an extremely strategic waterway since it links the Persian Gulf with the open ocean. A large portion of the international transport of oil and liquefied natural gas passes through it. Therefore, any change in regulations could influence the cost of transport and insurance and the confidence of investors in the market. This is the reason why the position of Oman cannot be regarded only in the context of the discussion between the nations. The introduction of a toll in Hormuz would not be an issue of domestic management policy but rather a reformation of the economics of international transportation. The mere existence of a potential for this step creates enough interest among governments, energy traders and the owners of ships. The geographic peculiarities of the strait are the reason for its importance too. According to one of the reports, it was about 34 kilometers wide.

Oman’s diplomatic balancing act

Oman has long tried to act as a mediator in Gulf tensions, and this issue fits that role. It is maintaining dialogue with Iran while also reassuring Gulf states and the broader international community that it does not back compulsory tolls on shipping.

That balance is delicate. Oman wants to be constructive without appearing to endorse a measure that would alarm maritime markets or create a precedent for restricting access to the strait. By telling the UN it opposes transit fees, Oman is positioning itself as a defender of open navigation while still keeping diplomatic channels open.

The reports suggest Muscat is willing to discuss lawful maritime services, but not a compulsory fee system. That is a careful line to walk because it preserves room for negotiation without surrendering the principle of free passage. It also lets Oman present itself as pragmatic rather than confrontational.

Iran’s place in the discussion

This makes Iran important for the discussion since media reports say that Iran has been a part of discussions on maritime charges in the strait. As a result, there have been some reports of confusion, especially on whether there is going to be a model of paying for passage through the strait. Public comments from the Omani government seem to be aimed at preventing any misunderstanding from being turned into policy. According to these media reports, both Oman and Iran have discussed the issue of maritime service charges, but this does not necessarily mean that Oman is supporting the idea of transit charges. The difference between service charges and transit charges is important because they are very different things. Service charge is something that is a matter of operational nature while transit charge will change the situation with access to international waters dramatically. This is why it is also important to consider the role of the UN in this context.

Regional and global reaction

The reporting suggests Gulf states are not supportive of transit fees in Hormuz. That matters because regional pushback makes it harder for any fee proposal to gain traction. If neighboring states and major maritime users reject the idea, the political cost of pushing ahead becomes much higher.

There is also reported opposition from the United States, which views the idea of a fee with concern. Global shipping interests are likely to share that view because even the suggestion of extra charges can ripple through freight pricing, insurance calculations, and risk assessments. In a market built on predictability, uncertainty is costly.

It also explains Oman’s decision to take such a stance in the matter. This shows the nation understands that the issue is not only financial but one of trust, legality, and stability as well. Through its opposition to transit fees at the UN, it is signaling its view that the strait must continue to be a reliable and feeless artery of international business. There are several figures which add context to the issue. The width of the Strait of Hormuz, according to reports, is said to be around 34 kilometers. In another report, there were talks regarding a 60-day toll-free period for ships engaged in commerce prior to any agreement being signed. These numbers demonstrate the seriousness of the issue. Even the individuals involved acknowledge that a transit fee could disrupt operations in some way.