27MAY

Tehran demands ratification, not a deal

4 min read

15:19UTC

Iran's overnight counter-proposal asks Washington to legally recognise the Hormuz toll system Tehran has already built, not negotiate it away.

← Back to Brussels slips sovereignty law a third time Jump to analysis ↓

TechnologyDeveloping

Key takeaway

Iran's counter-proposal asks Washington to ratify, not negotiate, the Hormuz status quo Tehran has built.

Iran transmitted a 10-point counter-proposal to Washington overnight via Pakistan's Foreign Office, in which President Masoud Pezeshkian's spokesman set the price of any reopening: "the strait of Hormuz will open when all the damage caused by the imposed war is compensated through a new legal regime, using a portion of the revenue from transit fees" ¹.

Read what Tehran is asking for. The proposal demands Washington recognise a "new legal regime" for Hormuz, full sanctions relief, war reconstruction funds, and the cessation of Western military operations across the region. Every one of those provisions, on the strait itself, describes the situation Iran has already built. Iran's parliament legislated a permanent customs authority over the strait in late March . French and Japanese vessels have already paid Tehran's toll in yuan to transit . The IRGC toll system runs five tariff tiers and roughly 53 weekly transits, 94% below the pre-war baseline of 966 weekly crossings, yet the toll architecture itself runs at full revenue capacity.

What Iran has put on Pakistan's table is not a counter-offer; it is an invoice for international ratification of the status quo. Tehran wants Washington to sign the customs system into legal existence, not negotiate it away. The conventional sequence has been reversed: instead of trading the toll for sanctions relief, Iran is asking for sanctions relief, reconstruction, and the legal codification of the toll in a single document.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Iran has sent a formal list of ten conditions to the US, via Pakistan as a go-between. The headline condition: the Strait of Hormuz , the narrow passage through which about a fifth of the world's oil normally flows , will only reopen once the US legally recognises Iran's right to charge ships a toll to pass through it. Here is what makes this unusual. Iran is already charging that toll. Ships from France and Japan have already paid it. The toll system already exists and is running. Iran is not offering to create something new , it is asking the US to sign a legal document recognising what is already there. It is a bit like a squatter asking the homeowner to change the deeds rather than agree to move out. The homeowner has to decide whether to accept the squatter's terms, keep fighting, or find a third path , and so far, Trump's answer is 'not good enough', without specifying what would be.

Deep Analysis

Synthesis

The proposal's significance is architectural, not transactional. Iran is not offering a deal; it is publishing the terms on which it would allow an existing arrangement to acquire legal permanence. The gap between what Tehran has put in writing and what any US administration can sign is the gap this war has not closed , and today's answer from Trump did not close it.

Root Causes

Iran's maximalist counter-proposal reflects three structural factors that predate the war. First, the IRGC has for decades sought a legal basis for its role in Persian Gulf security that international maritime law under UNCLOS does not provide; the war has created the first realistic opportunity to demand that basis as a peace condition.

Second, Iran's civilian government under Pezeshkian has almost no leverage over the IRGC military council , meaning any counter-proposal that the government transmits must be one the IRGC has approved , and the IRGC's minimum price for the toll system is codification, not mere continuation.

Third, the precedent of the 2015 JCPOA, which was undone by the US within three years of signing, has made Iran deeply resistant to informal or executive-agreement-only arrangements. The demand for a "new legal regime" , the specific language the spokesman used , is in part a demand for the kind of multilateral treaty architecture that a future US president cannot unilaterally exit.

What could happen next?

Meaning
The 10-point proposal confirms Iran is treating the toll system as a permanent institution, not a wartime expedient , there is no version of the counter-proposal in which Iran dismantles the toll in exchange for sanctions relief alone.
Immediate · 0.88
Consequence
If Trump extends the deadline again without engaging Iran's specific legal ratification demand, the gap between the two positions hardens from tactical to structural, making any settlement before the War Powers 60-day clock (approaching 29 April) arithmetically unlikely.
Short term · 0.74
Risk
China's backing of the Islamabad Accord (ID:2055) as currency-of-transit provider and UNSC gatekeeper gives the toll architecture external legitimacy that compounds the difficulty of a US legal challenge even if a US administration refuses to sign.
Medium term · 0.7
Precedent
If any version of the Hormuz toll system is ratified in a peace settlement, it sets the first precedent in the post-UNCLOS era of a state extracting sovereignty concessions over an international strait through wartime fait accompli.
Long term · 0.65

Source Landscape

This story draws on neutral-leaning sources from United States and France

United States

France

LeftRight

Primary parallel: Iran's five conditions relayed through PressTV on 25 March 2026 (ID:1660) already included recognition of "Iran's natural and legal right to control the strait of Hormuz." The 10-point proposal is not a new diplomatic opening but an elaboration of a position Iran has held consistently since the war's third week , each iteration adding legal architecture around the same core demand.

Counter-parallel: In the 1979 Algiers Accords, Iran and the US reached a deal that included US commitments not to interfere in Iranian internal affairs and the unfreezing of Iranian assets , structurally similar in that Washington was asked to ratify a political outcome Iran had already achieved. That precedent took 444 days and a US election to reach. The present gap is wider: the Hormuz toll has no equivalent in the 1979 framework.

The Hormuz toll system has already demonstrated commercial viability: at $1 per barrel in yuan or stablecoins, a Very Large Crude Carrier pays roughly $2 million per transit . The 53 weekly transits at current rates represent a revenue stream of approximately $100–150 million per week , modest relative to Iran's $14 billion pre-war annual petrochemical export base, but structurally self-sustaining and independent of any US-controlled financial architecture.

If the US were to legally ratify the toll regime as part of a settlement, the revenue mechanism would be legitimised in international law, making subsequent US sanctions on Hormuz transit fees substantially harder to enforce without violating the treaty. The economic incentive for Iran to hold out for ratification rather than accept a de facto arrangement is therefore significant: a de facto toll can be dismantled by the next US president; a codified legal regime cannot.

Consensus view: Chatham House's Sanam Vakil assesses the counter-proposal as Iran's attempt to convert wartime leverage into peacetime institutions before any ceasefire removes the negotiating pressure , a rational but structurally incompatible ask, given that no US administration can accept formal Hormuz sovereignty as a treaty commitment.

Counter-view: Hamidreza Azizi at SWP Berlin notes that Iran's domestic audience requires the IRGC to demonstrate the war produced a codified gain, not merely a de facto one; the 10-point text is partly a domestic legitimacy document aimed at showing the cost of the war was worth bearing, and should not be read as a final negotiating position.

Key tension: Whether Iran's published terms represent its actual minimum, or whether an unpublished compromise exists that drops the legal ratification demand in exchange for substantive sanctions relief , the question neither Pezeshkian's spokesman nor Trump's aides resolved today.

Sources:BankInfoSecurity·Digital Watch Observatory·Tech.eu

Mentions:Chatham House →Washington →United States →France →PressTV →Tehran →Sanam Vakil →Prima →Japan →Asim Munir →Donald Trump →Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) →Iran →Pakistan →Strait of Hormuz →Masoud Pezeshkian →

First Reported In

Update #61 · Carriers retreat; Iran codifies Hormuz

BankInfoSecurity· 7 Apr 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

Caused by

Iran's Hormuz Toll Matures Into Permanent Institution

Iran's 10-point counter-proposal seeks legal ratification of the permanent customs authority over Hormuz that ID:2047 already legislated.

Occurred 6 Apr 2026

Read story →

France and Japan pay Iran's toll

French and Japanese vessels paying the Hormuz toll in yuan (ID:1929) gave Iran operational proof that the legal regime functions without US consent.

Occurred 4 Apr 2026

Read story →

This Event

Tehran demands ratification, not a deal

Iran is asking the United States to sign the customs system into legal existence, an invoice for ratification of the status quo dressed as a counter-offer.

Different Perspectives

ASML / European tech industry

ASML's Q2 2026 guidance came in €300m below consensus as China DUV revenue collapsed 17 percentage points; the company's CEO wrote US export-control outcomes directly into 2026 guidance. European tech firms named on the USTR retaliation list alongside SAP, Siemens and Spotify face the same calculus: US trade exposure constrains what Brussels can legislate on their behalf.

France / Anne Le Henanff

Le Henanff chaired the G7 Digital Ministerial at Bercy on 29 May with CAIDA off the agenda, pivoting France's presidency to AI safety principles it had not designed the week around. France backs CAIDA but cannot override Berlin's tariff calculus, so the ministerial produced no new French-led commitment.

Germany / Federal government

Berlin's automotive sector faces up to $200bn in threatened US tariffs, a commercial exposure that dwarfs any benefit CAIDA's public-sector cloud rules would deliver to German digital firms. Federal silence inside the College of Commissioners functions as a block under consensus adoption rules without requiring a formal veto.

USTR / Ambassador Andrew Puzder

Puzder's public warning on 25 May that CAIDA is inconsistent with the EU-US trade framework was the first time Washington made its bilateral pressure visible before a Commission adoption vote rather than after. The USTR Section 301 determination on 24 July provides the enforcement backstop.

European Commission / Henna Virkkunen

Virkkunen framed the third slip as a procedural delay in finalising a 400-page text without addressing Puzder's trade-framework red line publicly. The Commission enforces existing law against Google while losing the legislative timeline on CAIDA, exposing an asymmetric position: enforcement holds; new sovereignty legislation does not.

OpenForum Europe / open-source community

The EUR 350m Sovereign Tech Fund has no Commission host, no budget line, and no commissioner's name attached six weeks after the April conference, while Germany is already paying maintainers to staff international standards bodies. The CRA open-source guidance resolves contributor liability but leaves the financial-donations grey area open with the 11 September reporting clock running.