Skip to content
Briefings are running a touch slower this week while we rebuild the foundations.See roadmap
Russia-Ukraine War 2026
13MAY

Majlis approves Hormuz toll bill

2 min read
20:00UTC

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 . 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

IAEA (via GlobalSecurity)· 1 Apr 2026
Read original
Different Perspectives
NATO eastern flank (B9 + Nordics)
NATO eastern flank (B9 + Nordics)
The B9+Nordic Bucharest joint statement on 13 May reaffirmed Ukraine's sovereignty within internationally recognised borders and backed NATO eastern flank reinforcement; the summit accepted Zelenskyy's bilateral drone deal proposal as a structural alternative to the stalled US export approval pathway, treating it as a European defence architecture question rather than aid delivery.
IAEA / Rafael Grossi
IAEA / Rafael Grossi
Grossi is still negotiating a sixth ZNPP repair ceasefire with no agreement after 50 days of 750 kV line disconnection; the 3 May ERCL drone strike that destroyed environmental monitoring equipment represents a qualitative escalation in infrastructure degradation that the IAEA has documented but cannot compel either party to halt.
Péter Magyar / Hungary
Péter Magyar / Hungary
Magyar's incoming foreign minister pledged on 12 May that Hungary will stop abusing EU veto rights; the pledge is a statement of intent rather than a binding legal commitment, and Magyar's MEPs voted against the €90 billion loan as recently as April, while a planned referendum on Ukraine's EU accession preserves a downstream blocking lever.
EU Council and European Commission
EU Council and European Commission
The Magyar cabinet formation on 12 May removes the Hungary veto that had blocked the €9.1 billion first tranche since February; the Commission is now coordinating the three-document disbursement package for an early-June vote. The structural blocker is gone; the disbursement question is now scheduling, not politics.
Donald Trump / White House
Donald Trump / White House
Trump announced a 9-11 May three-day ceasefire with a 1,000-for-1,000 prisoner exchange attached, then called peace 'getting very close' on 11-13 May while Russia's 800-drone barrage was under way; his public framing adopted Russian diplomatic language without securing any Russian operational concession or verifying the exchange was agreed.
Vladimir Putin / Kremlin
Vladimir Putin / Kremlin
Putin told reporters on 9 May the war is 'coming to an end' while Peskov confirmed on 13 May that territorial demands are unchanged and Russia requires full Ukrainian withdrawal from all four annexed regions; the verbal accommodation costs Moscow nothing and conditions any summit on a pre-finalised treaty Kyiv cannot accept.