Submitted by Bill Fernie
14th July 2026
A proposal from Donald Trump to impose a 20% charge on the value of cargoes travelling through the Strait of Hormuz has raised one of the most important questions in modern international trade:
Who has the right to charge for the protection of the world's most important shipping routes?
Supporters would argue that if the United States is providing naval protection, putting ships and personnel at risk, then countries and companies benefiting from that protection should contribute towards the cost.
Critics, however, question whether a military power can effectively impose a toll on an international waterway.
The debate is not just about the Middle East. It could set a precedent for how global trade routes operate in the future.
What Is the Strait of Hormuz?
The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow stretch of water between Iran and Oman connecting the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the wider Indian Ocean.
It is one of the world's most important energy routes.
A large proportion of the world's oil exports, together with significant volumes of liquefied natural gas, pass through this route every day.
Any threat to shipping immediately affects global energy markets because traders worry about whether supplies will continue reaching customers.
How Would a 20% Charge Work?
The basic idea appears simple:
A ship carrying valuable cargo through the Strait would pay a percentage of the cargo value in return for protection.
However, putting it into practice would be extremely complicated.
Consider an oil tanker carrying crude oil worth $100 million.
A 20% charge would amount to $20 million.
Questions immediately arise:
Who receives the payment?
Is it paid by the ship owner, the oil company or the country buying the oil?
How is the cargo value calculated?
What happens if a company refuses to pay?
Who has authority to enforce the charge?
This would be very different from normal shipping fees, such as harbour charges or navigation services.
A 20% charge would effectively operate more like a major tax on international trade.
Protection Service or International Toll?
This is where the biggest controversy lies.
There are examples around the world where governments charge for services connected with shipping.
Ports charge fees.
Canal operators charge vessels using waterways such as the Panama Canal and Suez Canal.
But these charges exist because there is an established legal framework and an agreed service.
The question with Hormuz is whether one country can impose a compulsory payment simply because it is providing military protection.
Supporters might argue:
"Security has a cost and those who benefit should contribute."
Opponents might respond:
"An international trade route should not become a pay-to-pass system controlled by one country."
This is why some critics have compared the idea to the kind of protection payments demanded throughout history by powerful groups controlling trade routes.
The supporters would strongly reject that comparison, arguing that a national navy providing security is entirely different from piracy.
The legal arguments would likely continue for years if such a system was introduced.
Who Would Really Pay?
This is perhaps the most important question for ordinary people.
The first people affected might be:
shipping companies;
oil traders;
energy companies;
commodity markets.
But costs rarely stop there.
A shipping company facing a much higher cost will usually try to recover that money.
The chain could look something like this:
Higher shipping charges → higher oil costs → higher fuel prices → higher transport costs → higher prices in shops
Ultimately, the bill is likely to reach:
Motorists
Petrol and diesel prices respond quickly to changes in crude oil prices.
Even small increases in the cost of oil can eventually affect forecourt prices.
Households using heating oil
This is particularly important in rural Scotland.
Many homes in areas such as Caithness still depend on heating oil because there is no mains gas network.
A prolonged rise in crude oil prices could mean higher costs when households refill their tanks.
Farmers
Agriculture is heavily dependent on fuel.
Tractors, machinery, transport and supply chains all rely on energy.
Higher fuel costs can increase production costs, which may eventually affect food prices.
Businesses
Transport companies, fishermen, builders, manufacturers and retailers all face higher energy and delivery costs.
In remote areas, where goods already travel longer distances, the impact can be greater.
Could It Increase the Oil Price Further?
The irony is that a charge intended to pay for security could itself increase insecurity in markets.
Oil traders would have to factor in another cost.
Countries importing energy would worry about higher bills.
Companies might look for alternative routes or supplies.
Markets generally dislike uncertainty, and uncertainty tends to push prices upwards.
Would Other Countries Accept This?
This is the major unknown.
Countries that rely heavily on Middle Eastern energy supplies, including many in Europe and Asia, would have their own views.
Some may welcome stronger protection for shipping.
Others may object strongly to the idea of paying a foreign government for access to a route considered vital to world trade.
If accepted, it could encourage other powerful nations to make similar claims over strategic routes.
That is why the debate goes beyond oil.
It is about who controls the arteries of global commerce.
A New Era for Energy Security?
The world has already learned that energy security is not just about finding oil and gas.
It is also about:
keeping shipping lanes open;
protecting infrastructure;
maintaining reliable supply chains;
avoiding political shocks.
The events around the Strait of Hormuz show how quickly a regional conflict can affect households thousands of miles away.
For people in the Highlands, the issue may seem distant, but the consequences are very local.
A decision made in Washington, Tehran or the Gulf could eventually influence the price of heating a home in Caithness, filling a vehicle, running a business or producing food.
The question remains:
Is a charge for protection a fair contribution towards security, or is it the beginning of a new kind of international toll system?