Iran Debates Banning U.S. and Israeli Ships as Hormuz Deal Advances: Compromise at Sea—or Two Irreconcilable Legal Orders?
Iran’s parliament is reviewing a bill that could bar U.S., Israeli and other ‘hostile’ vessels from Hormuz and fine violators, even as Trump says an interim reopening deal is progressing. Washington insists ships will not need Iranian permission or permits.
Iran’s parliament is considering legislation that would ban ships linked to the United States, Israel and other countries Tehran defines as hostile from passing through the Strait of Hormuz.
Reuters reports that the draft is under review by parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee.
The proposal could impose fines of up to 20% of a violating ship’s cargo value.
It comes at the same moment Iran and Oman are trying to finalise an interim navigation agreement and President Donald Trump says talks are “moving along good.”
A U.S. official says ships using the strait will not need Iranian permits or approvals.
Those two positions reveal the central unresolved conflict.
Iran sees itself as a coastal state with sovereign rights and security authority in part of the strait.
Washington sees Hormuz as an international waterway where lawful transit cannot depend on Tehran’s political permission.
A temporary traffic-lane arrangement can manage ships physically without resolving that legal disagreement.
The proposed Iranian law would sharpen it dramatically.
Banning ships because of nationality or political affiliation would move beyond ordinary maritime safety regulation.
The United States and many other states would regard that as unlawful interference with international navigation.
Iran argues that countries attacking it cannot expect unrestricted access through waters beside its territory.
The bill also appears designed for domestic politics.
Iranian diplomats are negotiating compromise with Oman.
Hardline parliamentarians and the Revolutionary Guards do not want that process interpreted as surrender.
A law threatening hostile ships can preserve a posture of resistance even while commercial traffic resumes.
President Masoud Pezeshkian says the United States continues to impose maximum economic pressure on Iran.
That argument helps explain why Tehran wants sanctions relief connected to any maritime settlement.
Washington has removed selected sanctions designations in recent days but says the broader Iran sanctions regime remains intact.
Saudi Arabia is also warning that Tehran may be preparing attacks on the kingdom.
A senior Saudi official has cited intelligence suggesting Iraqi militias and the Houthis could coordinate strikes under Iranian guidance.
Iran has separately warned Gulf states that U.S. attacks could trigger retaliation across the region.
This means the Hormuz negotiations are taking place while both sides prepare for escalation.
Trump threatens severe strikes if the waterway does not reopen.
Iran threatens regional retaliation if attacked.
Oman is trying to design rules that allow ships to move between them.
The draft maritime proposal reportedly separates inbound and outbound lanes and initially avoids tolls.
If implemented, ships may travel through Iranian waters without seeking political permission from Tehran in the way hardliners demand.
Iran could still describe the arrangement as sovereign management.
Washington could describe it as free transit.
Diplomatic ambiguity may be the only way forward.
The parliamentary bill threatens that ambiguity.
If enacted literally, it could make the interim arrangement impossible for U.S.-linked shipping.
The Supreme National Security Council and supreme leader may therefore have to reconcile domestic legislation with international negotiations.
The open question is whether the proposed ban is bargaining theatre intended to strengthen Iran’s hand—or a genuine legal red line that will collide with Washington’s insistence that no ship needs Tehran’s permission to pass through one of the world’s most important waterways.