Iran’s IRGC Warns Against Unauthorized Strait of Hormuz Crossings

Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has issued a stern warning to commercial vessels, insisting they only use routes through the Strait of Hormuz approved by Tehran.

The Strait of Hormuz has once again become a focal point of tension between Iran and the international community. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has issued a warning to commercial vessels, stating that only routes approved by Tehran are authorized for transit.

This declaration comes as shipping traffic gradually resumes after weeks of disruption, following a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed between the United States and Iran last week.

The Strait of Hormuz is a critical waterway, facilitating the passage of approximately one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies.

Its strategic importance is underscored by its narrow width, which at its tightest point is only about 33 kilometers (21 miles). Despite its narrowness, the strait is deep enough to accommodate the world’s largest oil tankers, making it indispensable for global energy trade.

Iran’s Stance on Shipping Routes

The IRGC has expressed frustration over a new shipping corridor announced by Oman and coordinated with the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The IRGC claims that this route was established without consulting Tehran and poses serious safety risks. According to the IRGC, the only authorized transit routes through the strait are those designated by Iran, and ships must maintain contact with the IRGC Navy while transiting the waterway.

This warning follows the passage of a Liberian oil tanker through the strait on Thursday, using a route closer to Oman’s coastline. The IRGC’s frustration stems from the perception that the Omani route partially bypasses Iran’s direct control over shipping. Resul Serdar an Al Jazeera reporter based in Tehran, noted that control of the Strait of Hormuz has been a significant leverage point for Iran in its conflict with the US.

The US-Iran Agreement and Its Implications

The MoU signed last week between the US and Iran includes provisions for the reopening of the strait and the resumption of commercial shipping. Iran agreed to make arrangements for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for a period of 60 days. However, the agreement also acknowledges the need for demining operations, which Iran has committed to instating within 30 days.

The agreement does not specify what will happen after the initial 60-day period, raising questions about whether Iran will seek to impose transit or service fees on ships using the strait. Ali Vaez Iran project director at the International Crisis Group noted that the temporary rerouting of vessels had always been expected due to the mine-clearing operations outlined in the agreement. However, he expressed concern that Iran might start taking fees or other tolls, which are not provided for in the memorandum.

The Future of the Strait of Hormuz

The future administration of the Strait of Hormuz remains a contentious issue, with Iran signaling that it views the post-war arrangement as fundamentally different from the status quo that existed before the conflict. Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has stated that the strait will never return to its prewar status. This suggestion has been met with resistance from the US, with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio dismissing the idea of Iran charging fees for passage through an international waterway.

Despite the resumption of some commercial shipping, traffic remains well below normal levels. According to shipping analytics company Kpler confirmed crossings rose to 70 vessels on Wednesday as demining progressed and more operators began using the Omani route. However, incomplete demining, continued ‘dark’ routing by some vessels, and unresolved questions over inspections, sanctions, and future governance mean that shipping has not yet returned to prewar conditions.

The future of the Strait of Hormuz is not only a matter of shipping routes but also a critical factor in global energy markets. As negotiations continue, the world watches closely to see if a comprehensive agreement can be reached within the 60-day timeframe. The stakes are high, with the potential for significant economic and geopolitical repercussions.