31MAR

France and Japan pay Iran's toll

2 min read

08:23UTC

Two G7 nations paid Iran in yuan to transit the Strait of Hormuz, breaking the collective coalition posture Washington built.

← Back to Trump drops Hormuz goal; toll becomes law Jump to analysis ↓

ConflictAssessed

Key takeaway

The US-led coalition is fracturing as allies pay Iran for passage in Chinese currency.

CMA CGM Kribi, a Malta-flagged container ship owned by France's CMA CGM (the world's third-largest container line), became the first Western European vessel to transit the Strait of Hormuz since 28 February. It paid Iran's toll in yuan. Before entering Iranian territorial waters, the ship changed its AIS designation to "Owner France", signalling nationality for the IRGC's sorting mechanism. ¹

Hours later, Mitsui OSK Lines' LNG carrier Sohar LNG crossed in ballast, the first Japanese-affiliated vessel to transit. Three Omani ships also passed through . The toll system charges $1 per barrel for oil tankers or roughly $2 million flat for container ships, payable in yuan or stablecoins.

France and Japan are nominal US allies. Both coordinated with Iranian maritime authorities. Both implicitly accepted Tehran's sovereignty claim over the strait, the precise claim Trump's 6 April energy deadline threatens force to break. Both paid in yuan, not dollars. The Philippines cut its own bilateral deal two days earlier . The coalition posture Washington has relied on since the blockade began is dissolving into bilateral licensing arrangements administered by Tehran.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

France and Japan are close US allies. On 4 April, their shipping companies paid Iran a fee in Chinese currency to sail through the Strait of Hormuz. This matters for two reasons. First, they implicitly accepted Iran's right to charge for use of an international waterway. Second, they paid in yuan, not dollars, chipping away at US financial influence. The Philippines cut a similar deal two days earlier. The alliance the US built around Hormuz is dissolving one bilateral arrangement at a time.

Deep Analysis

Root Causes

France's CMA CGM faces existential commercial pressure: the world's third-largest container line cannot absorb indefinite Hormuz closure without route restructuring at scale.

Japan's LNG dependency on Gulf supply creates energy-security vulnerability that outweighs diplomatic solidarity costs. Both governments calculated that collective posture imposed costs their economies could not sustain, while defection imposed only reputational costs the US would absorb rather than escalate over.

What could happen next?

Precedent
Yuan payment for Hormuz passage creates a non-dollar settlement precedent for strategic waterway access that will outlast this conflict.
Long term · High
Consequence
Each bilateral deal reduces the political viability of US military action to reopen Hormuz, as enforcement would require overriding arrangements US allies have themselves accepted.
Short term · High
Risk
General License U expiry on 19 April could force a confrontation with France and Japan if Treasury declines to renew, criminalising transactions both nations have already completed.
Medium term · Medium

Source Landscape

This story draws on mixed-leaning sources from France

France

LeftRight

Primary parallel: The 1973 oil embargo fractured Western alliance solidarity when European nations broke with the US to secure individual supply deals with Arab producers. France led the first defections then; it has led the first defections now. The pattern of allied defection under energy pressure is structurally identical, 53 years later.

Counter-parallel: Post-1973 the Kissinger framework produced the IEA collective response mechanism. No comparable institutional response has emerged for Hormuz, and the absence of one accelerates individual deal-making.

The immediate cost is concrete: approximately $2 million per container vessel, payable in yuan. The Majlis toll bill projects $600-800 million per month in revenue at scale. Each bilateral deal strengthens the toll's legitimacy and Iran's financial position.

The structural cost is larger. Yuan payment establishes a non-dollar precedent for strategic waterway access. If the pattern extends to oil tankers at $1 per barrel across 17 million barrels per day of pre-war Hormuz volume, the toll generates revenue that offsets sanctions impact and provides an ongoing incentive to maintain the closure.

Consensus view: Atlantic Council analysts and Lloyd's List Intelligence have assessed the bilateral accommodation pattern as a rational response to energy-supply pressure, not a coordinated defection from Washington. Each deal is driven by domestic political economy, not strategic preference for Tehran.

Counter-view: Chatham House argued in its March 2026 brief that European accommodation of Iran's toll sets a precedent that permanently legitimises economic coercion via strait control, regardless of the immediate energy rationale.

Key tension: The yuan payment is the strategically critical element. France and Japan are not merely buying passage; they are validating a non-dollar settlement mechanism for strategic waterway access. That precedent outlasts this conflict.

First Reported In

Update #58 · First US aircraft fall over Iran

Euronews / Bloomberg· 4 Apr 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

Caused by

Philippines Cuts Bilateral Hormuz Deal, Bypassing US Posture

The Philippines bilateral Hormuz deal two days earlier established the precedent of US allies bypassing collective posture through individual deals with Tehran.

Occurred 2 Apr 2026

Read story →

Omani Vessels Bypass IRGC Corridor, Disable Trackers

Oman's AIS-dark bypass of the IRGC corridor the same day as the Philippines deal created further coalition fracture that France and Japan extended to yuan payments.

Occurred 2 Apr 2026

Read story →

This Event

France and Japan pay Iran's toll

G7 allies accepting Tehran's sovereignty claim and paying in yuan is the conflict's most significant de-dollarisation event.

Different Perspectives

South Korean financial markets

South Korea, which imports virtually all its crude oil, is absorbing the war's economic transmission most acutely among non-belligerents. The second KOSPI circuit breaker in four sessions — with Samsung down over 10% and SK Hynix down 12.3% — reflects an industrial economy unable to reprice energy costs that have risen 72% in ten days. The market response indicates Korean industry cannot sustain oil above $100 per barrel without margin compression across manufacturing, semiconductors, and shipping.

Migrant worker communities in the Gulf

The first confirmed civilian deaths in Saudi Arabia — one Indian and one Bangladeshi killed, twelve Bangladeshis wounded — fell on communities with no voice in the military decisions that placed them in harm's way. Migrant workers live near military installations because that housing is affordable, not by choice. Bangladesh and India face the dilemma of needing to protect nationals who cannot easily leave a war zone while depending on Gulf remittances that fund a substantial share of their domestic economies.

Azerbaijan — President Ilham Aliyev

Aliyev treats the Nakhchivan strikes as a direct act of war against Azerbaijani sovereignty, placing armed forces on full combat readiness and demanding an Iranian explanation. The response is calibrated to maximise international sympathy while stopping short of military retaliation — Baku cannot fight Iran alone and needs either Turkish or NATO backing to credibly deter further strikes.

Oil-importing nations (Japan, South Korea, India)

The Hormuz closure is an existential threat. Japan, South Korea, and India receive the majority of their crude through the strait — they will bear the heaviest economic cost of a war they had no part in.

Global South governments (Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa)

Neutrality was possible when the targets were military. 148 dead schoolgirls made it impossible — no government can explain that away to its own citizens.

Turkey

Has absorbed three Iranian ballistic missile interceptions since 4 March without invoking NATO Article 5 consultation. Each incident narrows Ankara's political room to continue absorbing without Alliance-level response.