The Sovereignty of Hormuz and the Limits of Empire

By Mohamad Hammoud

Why the Strait of Hormuz Has Become a Test of Law, Power, and Western Double Standards

The Strait of Hormuz is more than a name on a map. It is the narrow waterway through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows, its pulse felt across distant markets and anxious capitals. This critical corridor is now the center of a profound dispute over whether international law restrains global powers or merely serves them when convenient. The modern conflict erupted when Washington violated the June memorandum of understanding, which had quieted these waters by implicitly recognizing Iran and Oman as the sole sovereign administrators of the passage. Because the strait narrows to just twenty-one miles, all transiting vessels must sail directly through these local territorial waters. Highlighting this geography, legal experts writing for Universiteit Leiden point out that because the United States has never ratified the Law of the Sea treaty, Washington lacks any standing to dictate rules here. Ultimately, this legal and geographical reality leaves the two coastal nations as the sole legitimate authorities over these waters.

Economic Tribute: The Myth of Global Security Fees

Donald Trump’s aggressive proposal to levy a unilateral twenty percent tariff on passing ships represents a severe violation of sovereign rights. International law is clear: no distant country has the right to extract economic tribute from a strategic waterway located thousands of miles away from its own borders. Indeed, the 1958 Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits charging fees for mere transit, meaning Trump has no basis to claim protection fees under the guise of global security. This imperial overreach prompts Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to mockingly point out that if anyone deserves compensation for securing these waters, it should be those who actually live beside them.

Historical Fractures: A Legacy of Intervention and Coups

The current escalation is merely the latest chapter in a long history of American hostility designed to oppress the Iranian people. This pattern of interference began in 1953 when the Central Intelligence Agency and British intelligence services orchestrated a coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. According to historical records published by the National Security Archive, this covert operation destroyed a thriving secular democracy to restore an absolute monarchy under the Shah. This coup ensured that Western conglomerates maintained control over Iranian oil at the expense of local self-determination, permanently shattering trust between the two nations.

Selective Morality: The Cold Logic of Containment

Following the 1979 revolution, Washington shifted its strategy from covert manipulation to a campaign of relentless economic and military strangulation. The United States quickly imposed sweeping economic sanctions designed to cripple the domestic economy and force a regime change. This pressure peaked during the Iran-Iraq War, when the American government supported Saddam Hussein’s administration even as Iraqi forces unleashed chemical weapons against Iranian citizens. For Tehran, this painful history demonstrates how selectively Western powers apply moral language when strategic interests are on the line. Today, that same double standard manifests in Washington's persistent backing of aggressive regional actors, including the state of "Israel," to keep Iran permanently isolated.

Defensive Postures: The Geopolitics of Encirclement

This historical sense of siege directly shapes how Tehran approaches the strategic waters of the Persian Gulf today. With American military forces deeply embedded along its coastline, Iran views the strait not just as a shipping channel, but as the front line of national survival. In this environment, Iranian naval maneuvers are framed not as provocations, but as a direct shield against hostile encirclement. To codify this posture, Tehran relies on the 1993 Law on Marine Areas of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which requires foreign warships to obtain prior authorization before entering its territorial waters. While Western powers protest these rules, Tehran presents them as a routine, necessary exercise of coastal sovereignty to prevent history from repeating itself.

The Global Mirror: Sovereignty in a Power-Driven World

The larger issue is not only who controls the Strait of Hormuz, but what kind of international order survives if power overrides principle. If the strongest states can impose charges and dismiss the rights of coastal nations, then international law becomes conditional and sovereignty becomes purely ornamental. Iran’s defenders argue that the real threat to maritime order is the habit of powerful states treating legal rights as negotiable whenever strategic advantage is at stake. This double standard makes Hormuz a mirror for the global system itself. Ultimately, the crisis raises the question of whether international law still applies equally to all nations, or whether its rules change shape when Western power enters the frame.