Any tolls in the Strait of Hormuz would be the new threat to maritime countries and global trade. The idea of imposing a fee on ships and cargo passing through the Strait of Hormuz is not just another proposal for an economic burden. It touches the core of the global maritime order, on which the internationalization of production, energy security and the economic rise of the major maritime countries were based.
The recent proposal to impose a levy on cargo passing through the wider Straits, on the grounds that the fee would cover the cost of military protection and security, would have turned an already extremely dangerous sea passage into a zone of immediate economic burden. The proposal was eventually abandoned and replaced by the pursuit of trade and investment agreements with the Gulf states. However, the fact that it was even temporarily put on the table reveals how easily freedom of navigation can be transformed from an international principle into a subject of political negotiation.
The Strait of Hormuz is no ordinary sea route. It is the world's most important energy bottleneck. In 2024, about 20 million barrels of oil passed through it per day, accounting for about a fifth of global oil consumption and more than a quarter of global seaborne oil trade. At the same time, about 20% of the world's liquefied natural gas trade passed through the same passage, mainly through Qatar's exports.
Therefore, any toll imposed on the Straits does not only affect the ships currently in the area. It is transmitted to the entire global economy through freight rates, insurance premiums, energy prices, commodities, industrial production and ultimately inflation, which creates political instability. And political instability is the bread and butter of populist leaders, who, unable to seize power in normal circumstances, wait for chaotic situations to deceive the citizens, and exploit the anger of the citizens, to rise to power.
From the transit fee to the cost multiplier: The first and most immediate consequence would be an increase in transportation costs. A 20% fee on the value of the cargo would not work like a regular port fee. It would be a very large additional burden on cargoes of oil, natural gas, petrochemicals, fertilizers and industrial raw materials, the value of which can be tens or hundreds of millions of dollars per ship.
Shipowners would not be able to absorb such a cost. They would attempt to pass it on to charterers and cargo owners. They, in turn, would pass it on to importers, industries and ultimately consumers.
The result would be a cost multiplier. On top of the already high war risk premiums, delays, security costs, potential crew changes, increased fuel consumption and additional legal and contractual costs would be added to the transit fee. These combined risks are difficult to value, insure and incorporate into long-term contracts.
UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has already warned that disruptions to major maritime bottlenecks lead to route changes, longer transit times, increased freight rates and strain on supply chains. Recent experience from the Red Sea, the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal has shown that even without a formal end, uncertainty can drastically reduce transit and increase global trade costs.
The special report on Asian economies: Asian economies would be on the front lines of the impact. About 89% of the crude oil and condensates that passed through the Strait in the first half of 2025 were destined for Asian markets. China, India, Japan and South Korea together absorbed almost three-quarters of these flows.
For Japan and South Korea, which are heavily dependent on energy imports, a Straits tariff would act as an indirect tax on industrial production. It would raise the cost of electricity, transportation, chemicals, steel, cars and electronics.
China, despite having greater diversification potential and a huge domestic production base, remains the world's largest energy importer. The burden on its seaborne imports would reinforce its drive to secure more land-based energy routes, strategic reserves, and alternative suppliers.
India would face similar pressure, as rising energy costs would weigh on its trade balance, currency, inflation and public finances.
Europe and the return of energy insecurity: For Europe, imposing fees on Hormuz would reignite fears of a new energy crisis. After reducing its dependence on Russia, the European Union has increased the importance of liquefied natural gas and diversified maritime supplies. A new charge on cargoes originating in the Persian Gulf would increase LNG prices and particularly affect countries that do not have sufficient domestic production or alternative energy sources. The impact would not be limited to energy. Gulf states export petrochemicals, fertilizers and industrial raw materials. Their increased costs would be passed on to agriculture, construction, transport and manufacturing.
Greece as a global maritime power: For Greece, the issue is of particular importance. Greek-owned shipping is one of the largest forces in the global merchant fleet and has a strong presence in the transport of crude oil, petroleum products, LNG and dry cargo. At first glance, the increase in risks and freight rates could generate higher revenues for some shipowners. However, this does not necessarily equate to higher net profitability. Revenue would be accompanied by higher insurance premiums, financing costs, crew costs, risks of delays and potential losses.
In addition, Greek shipping companies would have to deal with complex compliance questions. Who would pay the fee? The shipowner, the charterer or the cargo owner? Could it be considered a force majeure event? Would it create a right to cancel a charter? How would it be treated by insurance companies and lenders? This uncertainty is often more burdensome than the fee itself, because it increases legal risk and makes it difficult to price contracts.
For the Greek economy, there would be a second impact: more expensive energy, higher transportation costs and new inflationary pressures. Therefore, even if a segment of shipping benefited from higher freight rates, the overall impact on the Greek economy could be negative.
Norway, Denmark, Singapore and the United Kingdom: Other major shipping countries would face different types of impacts. Denmark, with a strong presence in container shipping, would be affected through higher freight rates, delays and volatility on Asia-Europe routes. Norway could benefit from higher energy prices as a producer, but its shipping and insurance companies would face increased operational risk. Singapore, as a global shipping, trading and insurance hub, would face increased volatility, a need for higher inventories and a redirection of trade flows. The United Kingdom would face major impacts through London, which remains a key centre for marine insurance, ship financing, arbitration and maritime services.
The legal precedent: Perhaps the most serious consequence would be the international precedent. The International Maritime Organization has reiterated that passage through international straits must remain unimpeded and free from fees and discriminatory charges. It has also warned that there is no legal basis for unilaterally imposing tolls or other conditions on straits used for international navigation. If it were accepted that a power with a military presence could charge for the protection of an international passage, what would prevent similar demands in the Straits of Malacca, Bab el-Medeb, the Taiwan Strait, or other critical routes? World trade could be transformed into a network of geopolitical toll zones, where power determines the price of passage.
From freedom of navigation to the commercialization of security: Imposing fees in Hormuz would mean that navigation safety ceases to be considered a public international good and becomes a marketable service.
This would be particularly self-defeating for the United States, whose economic and strategic power has been based for decades on the high seas and freedom of navigation. Imposing such a fee would weaken the American ability to oppose similar practices by other states. That is why the transformation of the original proposal into bilateral trade and investment agreements was more than a technical change. It was an attempt to avoid a precedent that could overturn the current maritime system.
Predictability as a new naval power: For shipping countries, the essential good is not just freedom of passage. It is predictability. Shipowners can manage high costs as long as they know what they are. They can insure a risk as long as it can be calculated. They can renegotiate a contract as long as the rules remain stable.
But they cannot function effectively when fees, exemptions, and transit conditions change from day to day depending on political statements or military developments. Tolls in the Strait of Hormuz would not just be a new tax on shipping. They would be a tax on predictability, energy security, and global economic integration itself.
And for countries like Greece, whose economic power and international presence are based on the sea, defending freedom of navigation is not an abstract legal principle. It is a core national interest.
Photo By MODIS Land Rapid Response Team, NASA GSFC – This image or video was cataloged by Goddard Space Flight Center of the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) under Photo ID: 2018-12-10., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=145434088, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
