“It was just another bravado”: ​​why Trump backed down on his threat to charge 20% for security in Hormuz

“After very productive conversations with Middle Eastern leaders, I have decided to replace the United States’ 20% refund rate with trade and investment agreements that the various Gulf States will make in the United States”he detailed trump in a message on social networks.

LOOK: The revelation about how Marco Rubio acts as the de facto ruler of Venezuela

“Those investments will be HUGE. but, at the same time, extraordinarily good for them and for their future,” he added.

He also maintained that “The Strait of Hormuz is open to all maritime traffic, except that of Iran“, and stressed that USA will impose “a total blockade, but only on ships arriving or leaving Iranian ports, or transporting anything related to Iranian cargo.”

The Strait of Hormuz, located between Iran and Omanis a key sea route through which a fifth of the world’s oil production passes.

On Monday, in the midst of a new military escalation, Trump announced a radical change in the US strategy for the Strait of Hormuz by proposing the collection of a fee equivalent to 20% of the value of the cargo transported by the ships that pass through it in exchange for the military protection that Washington would provide them.

According to his statements, the idea was based on The United States is allocating enormous military resources to keep the maritime passage open while other countries—especially large oil importers—benefit without assuming those costs. Trump even stated that The US would be the “guardian” or “guardian angel” of the Strait and that, for that protection, it had to be compensated.

The proposal of trump amounted to transforming US military protection of the Strait of Ormuz in a service financed by users, an unprecedented model for a maritime route considered of international interest.

On Iran’s side, Tehran seeks to strengthen its influence over the Strait of Hormuz through total control and convert that strategic position into an instrument of political and diplomatic pressure.. Although there has been speculation about the possibility that it could impose a toll to maritime transit, until now there is no official Iranian proposal or evidence that this initiative has been incorporated into the negotiations with the United States.

On Monday, the chancellor of IranAbbas Araghchi, categorically rejected the proposal of trump and described it as “economic extortion”. He affirmed that his country has been and will continue to be the sole guarantor and guardian of security in the Strait of Hormuz.

What does international legislation say?

Regarding the legal basis for Trump’s claim, the International Maritime Organization (IMO)a specialized agency of the United Nations, reiterated on Monday that There is no legal basis for imposing mandatory tariffs for transit through international straits. and maintained that such a measure contravenes the current legal framework on freedom of navigation.

While the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea establishes that the straits used for international navigation, such as that of Hormuzare subject to the regime of “step in transit”which guarantees the continuous and expeditious circulation of ships and aircraft between one part of the sea and another. In general terms, coastal States cannot prevent such transit or impose tolls, although they can adopt measures related to safety, environmental protection and compliance with navigation regulations.

Although the United States and Iran have not ratified the Convention, Washington has maintained for decades that these provisions are part of customary international law and are therefore generally applicable.

The situation is different in the Panama and Suez canalsbecause they are not natural straits, but artificial infrastructures built and administered by a State or a competent authority. In both cases, toll collection is supported by international law and treaties.

“It was just another bravado”

The international journalist and analyst Carlos Novoa said to The Commerce that the rapid withdrawal of the proposal trump indicates that it was a pressure strategy against Iran, which is in accordance with a method that has characterized his way of negotiating in foreign policy.

“Trump, true to his style, was looking for a pressure mechanism against Iran. It was just another bravado“said Novoa, who believed that maintaining this measure would have had a high economic cost, making international trade more expensive and ending up affecting American consumers themselves. ”If he had maintained that measure, everything would have become more expensive worldwide and, mainly, American consumers would have fallen on Trump.“, he warned.

However, Novoa indicated that the episode affects the credibility of Washington’s foreign policy, although he insisted that it is not an isolated event.. “Yes, it affects, but it is like another stripe on the tiger, because American foreign policy is subordinated to Trump’s will or current thinking.“.

He said that the president has demonstrated this pattern of behavior in “almost all international issues” that he has faced during his term.

Regarding the impact of the shift on the international perception of the United States, Novoa considered that the problem does not lie in the country’s military capacity, but in the uncertainty generated by the president’s decisions. “There is no doubt that militarily the United States remains very powerful; I could kill anyone I want. That’s not the point“, he pointed out.

Instead, he stated that the main concern is the consequences that these changes may have on Washington’s commercial and political interests. “You have to look at Trump day by day. Today he says one thing, tomorrow another and the day after that another“.

Trump was going to end up justifying Iran’s claims

For the international analyst Francesco Tucci, professor of Political Science and International Relations at the Peruvian University of Applied Sciences (UPC), the proposal of trump It was a contradiction to the position that Washington has held regarding freedom of navigation and, paradoxically, ended up legitimizing an aspiration of Iran if it finally establishes a toll.

Regarding the consequences, Tucci indicated that a measure like the one trump posed “could have even doubled the final price of the products that transit through the strait and significantly raise the cost of oil and other hydrocarbons.

Tucci warned that, if an initiative of this type were to come to fruition, it could modify the rules that have governed international navigation for decades.

“The possibility of charging a toll will be justified and that will change international rules. It can be a dangerous antecedent“he stated.

The analyst recalled that both the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio; and Vice President JD Vance had defended the need to preserve free transit through international straits and rejected the possibility of imposing tolls.

He added that this type of spin by Trump “It’s not new. He has accustomed us to inconsistencies and backtracking on statements he had made; So it doesn’t surprise me honestly.“.

He also recalled that Trump usually uses high-impact advertisements as part of his negotiating strategy.

“We are used to Trump’s policy: to negotiate he proposes complex things, takes critical positions and then backs down“he explained.

Finally, the analyst maintained that the controversy around Hormuz reflects a broader transformation of global geopolitics, where “The straits and canals are becoming a means of pressure. They can be used as a tool of power, especially to exert political and economic pressure.”“, he concluded.