Skip to content
Iran Conflict 2026
20APR

Majlis approves Hormuz toll bill

2 min read
10:10UTC

A key Majlis committee approved the Hormuz toll bill, advancing legislation that would permanently ban US and Israeli vessels and require fees in Iranian rial from all other shipping. Once codified, the toll becomes reversible only through domestic political process ; no future ceasefire can unwind it.

ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

Committee approval advances legislation that would make Hormuz's contested status a matter of Iranian domestic law, not merely military posture.

The Majlis committee approved the Hormuz toll legislation on 1 April, advancing a bill that permanently bans US and Israeli vessels from the strait and requires fees in Iranian rial from all other shipping. The bill had been drafted in parliament on Day 25, moved to committee stage on Day 32, and has now cleared committee. Full parliamentary vote, Guardian Council review, and presidential signature remain.

There is a fundamental difference between the IRGC imposing a toll because it controls a strait and the Iranian Parliament enacting a law that makes the toll a statutory requirement. The first is a military fact reversible by military defeat. The second is a legal instrument reversible only by domestic political process. Iran had already demanded Hormuz sovereignty as a formal peace condition ; the legislation converts that negotiating demand into permanent law.

The bill bans US and Israeli vessels explicitly and requires fees in Iranian rial, forcing buyers to transact in a sanctioned currency. The NPT withdrawal bill is advancing on the same legislative track . Both bills are designed to survive any ceasefire: a ceasefire can stop the shooting, but it cannot repeal domestic Iranian legislation.

The IRGC's toll system had already been operating since around Day 12, with Chinese state ships paying and crossing . Codifying the practice into permanent law removes any ambiguity about whether a future Iranian government could unilaterally rescind it. If Trump withdraws in two to three weeks without securing this bill's reversal, the US leaves behind a legal architecture that makes Hormuz permanently contested.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

The Iranian parliament is voting on a law that would permanently charge ships money to use the Strait of Hormuz ; a narrow channel through which about one in five barrels of the world's oil passes. Right now, Iran is blocking the strait militarily during the war. This law would make that blockade permanent and legal under Iranian law, even after the war ends. American and Israeli ships would be banned outright. This matters because there is a big difference between Iran blocking the strait with soldiers, which can be reversed, and Iran blocking it with a law, which can only be reversed by Iran itself choosing to change the law.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

The toll bill was drafted as a direct response to US and Israeli strikes on Iranian infrastructure (ID:1751). It converts an emergency military response into a permanent economic instrument, institutionalising the leverage Iran discovered it holds over global energy markets.

What could happen next?
  • Precedent

    First instance of a state attempting to codify transit fees for an international strait into domestic law, potentially triggering a global UNCLOS legal challenge.

    Long term · Assessed
  • Consequence

    A ceasefire that leaves the Hormuz toll law in place fails to address the economic cause of the oil price spike.

    Medium term · Assessed
  • Risk

    Guardian Council and presidential signature stages create multiple veto points, but each ratification stage makes repeal politically harder.

    Short term · Reported
First Reported In

Update #54 · Trump declares victory and withdrawal

Tabnak· 1 Apr 2026
Read original
Different Perspectives
Global South governments (Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa)
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
Trump administration
Oscillating between claiming diplomatic progress and threatening escalation, while deploying additional ground forces to the Gulf.
Israeli security establishment
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
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
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 — 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.