19APR

Pakistan Hormuz deal: 40 ships of 2,000

2 min read

11:05UTC

Islamabad secured passage for 20 more vessels, but the deal covers a fraction of the queue and preserves Iran's legal claim over the strait.

← Back to Russia yes, Iran no: Treasury signs only one waiver Jump to analysis ↓

ConflictDeveloping

Key takeaway

Pakistan's Hormuz deal reinforces Iran's sovereignty claim while covering under 2% of stranded vessels.

Pakistan secured a second bilateral deal with Iran: 20 more vessels at two per day, bringing the total to approximately 40 Pakistani-flagged ships ¹. Iran's state media framed it as a bilateral arrangement, not a concession on Hormuz sovereignty. Against approximately 2,000 stranded ships , 40 vessels represents less than 2% of the queue.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif held what Pakistani officials described as "extensive discussions" with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. Finance Minister Ishaq Dar called the deal a "harbinger of peace." It is not. Every bilateral deal reinforces Tehran's leverage by demonstrating that Hormuz passage now flows from Iranian permission, not international law. Each agreement concedes the premise that Iran controls the strait .

Deep Analysis

In plain English

The Strait of Hormuz has about 2,000 ships stuck waiting to pass through. Pakistan negotiated a deal to get 40 of its own ships through, two per day. That is less than 2% of the queue. The deal is significant not for the ships it moves but for what it implies: Pakistan accepted that Iran's permission is required to transit an international waterway. International law says Iran has no right to charge that toll or require that permission. Every bilateral deal like this one makes it slightly harder to argue that Iran is violating international law, because sovereign states are effectively recognising Iran's authority by asking for its approval.

Source Landscape

This story draws predominantly on Iran state media, with sources from Iran

Iran

Against roughly 2,000 stranded vessels carrying an estimated 20,000 seafarers and cargo valued in the billions, 40 Pakistani-flagged vessels represents a negligible proportion. The deal's economic significance for global markets is near zero; its political and legal significance is substantial.

Consensus view: The Atlantic Council and the International Institute for Strategic Studies assess Pakistan's bilateral Hormuz deal as reinforcing Iranian sovereignty leverage: each agreement treats passage as a gift from Tehran rather than a legal right, gradually establishing the precedent Iran needs.

Counter-view: Pakistani Foreign Ministry officials and Islamabad-based Strategic Vision Institute argue the deals are a pragmatic trade necessity for a nuclear-armed state that cannot afford an economic blockade, and that bilateral arrangements are a lesser concession than outright acceptance of tolls by flag-of-convenience ships.

Key tension: Whether bilateral deals increase diplomatic pressure on Iran by demonstrating that non-Western states can negotiate independently of the US framework, or whether they undermine international legal principles by normalising sovereign control of an international strait.

Sources:PressTV

Mentions:Strait of Hormuz →Iran →Pakistan →

First Reported In

Update #51 · Iran hits aluminium plants; Hormuz emptying

PressTV· 29 Mar 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

Caused by

Pakistan bids to host US-Iran talks

Pakistan's second bilateral Hormuz deal follows its prior facilitation role and confirms its positioning as Iran's preferred bilateral intermediary.

Occurred 24 Mar 2026

Read story →

This Event

Pakistan Hormuz deal: 40 ships of 2,000

The bilateral deal demonstrates Iran's ability to grant selective passage while maintaining its sovereignty position, turning Hormuz access into a diplomatic currency rather than a legal right.

Led to

COSCO ships pay IRGC toll at Hormuz

Pakistan's deal for 20 additional ships through Hormuz created the precedent that state-backed vessels can transit under negotiated terms.

Occurred 30 Mar 2026

Read story →

Different Perspectives

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.

Trump administration

Oscillating between claiming diplomatic progress and threatening escalation, while deploying additional ground forces to the Gulf.

Israeli security establishment

Fears a rapid, vague US-Iran agreement that freezes military operations before the IDF achieves what it considers full strategic objectives. A senior military official assessed the campaign is 'halfway there' and needs several more weeks.

Iraqi government

Iraq's force majeure is the position of a non-belligerent whose entire petroleum economy has been paralysed by a war between others — storage full, exports blocked, production being cut with no timeline for resumption.

Russia — Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia

Moscow calibrated its position between Gulf states and Iran: abstaining on Resolution 2817 rather than vetoing it, signalling it would not block protection for Gulf states, while refusing to endorse a text that ignores the US-Israeli campaign it regards as the conflict's proximate cause. Russia proposed its own ceasefire text — which failed 4-2-9 — allowing Moscow to claim the peacemaker role while providing Iran with satellite targeting intelligence, a duality consistent with its approach in Syria.

France — President Macron

France absorbed its first combat death in a conflict it has publicly declined to join. The killing of Chief Warrant Officer Frion in Erbil forces Macron to choose between escalating involvement and accepting casualties from the margins.