In Hormuz, the coming days may prove that ships do not sail according to the sound of statements, but rather according to the light of buoys, maps of mines, and the silence of radar under the shadow of confusion.
After the memorandum from Washington and Tehran, the corridor seemed to be open like a gate opening in a storm: one can see it, but not rush into it, and the British press is drawing a complex map of the future of the corridor in the coming days.
Read also
list of 3 itemsend of list
The Times newspaper says that the first ships that infiltrated the Strait after it was declared open were two giant Iranian oil tankers, carrying millions of barrels that were now ready for sale on the open market, after they were freed from old American sanctions and a naval blockade imposed by Washington after the outbreak of the war.
As for the rest of the shipping traffic, it remained more conservative. Despite Washington and Tehran’s pledge that the strait would become “completely open,” the Times quoted Vincent Clerc, CEO of the giant shipping company Maersk, that he would not allow his company’s ships to cross the passage before the safe routes became clear, and before obtaining a guarantee from Iran that they would not be harmed.
A temporary outlet
The memorandum of understanding opened the strait for 60 days without fees, and obligated Iran to restore movement within 30 days, in exchange for an American withdrawal from the naval blockade. However, the Times sees in this clause the seed of the coming dispute, not the end of the crisis, because the passage is free now, but it is not guaranteed after the deadline expires.
Muhammad Baqir Qalibaf, Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, announced on state television that “the Strait of Hormuz will not return to pre-war conditions,” and that Iran has the right to sovereignty over it and to charge fees for services.
The Times believes that the use of the word “services” may be an Iranian attempt to formulate fees in legal language, because imposing fees on international corridors is not legitimate, while some circumstances may allow for specific service fees.
In response, the Financial Times revealed that the Persian Gulf Strait Authority, an Iranian agency established in May to manage traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, distributed a document to shipping officials requiring every passing ship to have an insurance policy approved by the authority.
The document says that insurance will be free for now, but reserves the right to impose an “insurance fee” later.
The Financial Times reports that shipping companies fear that imposing fees on an international corridor may open a dangerous door to other sea lanes surrounded by multiple countries, such as the Strait of Malacca or the Taiwan Strait.
minefield
The Guardian – citing the Oil Tanker Association (Intertanko) – warns of: The middle of the Strait of Hormuz is still closed by about 80 mines that need to be removed before navigation returns to normal. Phil Belcher, the association’s maritime director, says that the main road in the middle of the strait is closed and dangerous, and that it will take time to clean it.
Belcher likens the situation to a highway whose middle lane was closed, so vehicles were forced to drive on the shoulder of the road, but the “shoulder” in Hormuz is the lane close to the Omani coast, where the waters narrow, and the risks of stranding and collision increase.
Some ships used that route during the war, sneaking up near the Omani coast at night and turning off transmitters, sometimes with American help, and paying other ships to pass through Iranian waters in an arrangement the shipping industry called the “Tehran tollbooth.”
However, what happened during wartime is not conducive to the return of normal navigation. Before the war, the strait accommodated about 130 ships daily, and about a fifth of the world’s oil passed through it. Now, the Guardian says that nearly 600 ships have remained inside the Gulf since February, and that thousands of sailors have remained stranded on both sides of the passage.
The report quotes Richard Mead, editor-in-chief of Lloyd’s List, as saying that the sector is entering “uncharted territory”, and that navigation in Hormuz may not return to normal this year.
Blind navigation
The Guardian adds that the danger does not stop at the mines, as the narrow paths that ships currently use raise the possibility of collision, especially with the accumulation of tankers and a large number of them trying to exit the Gulf at the same time.
The newspaper also recalls the Iranian interference with signals during the war, which disrupted navigation and positioning systems, leaving ships sometimes closer to sailing blind.
In the narrow corridor of Hormuz, there is no need for a major political decision to disrupt global trade – as the Guardian points out – as it is enough for any ship to run aground or collide, so that the specter of closing the Suez Canal will be repeated when the “Ever Given” blocked the passage for an entire week in 2021.
Therefore, shipping companies say that the MoU should be received “with great realism and caution.” The Guardian quotes Peter Sand, chief analyst at Zenita, as saying that the effects of the blockade and price fluctuations cannot be erased overnight, even if the ceasefire holds.
What is outside the sea?
According to the Financial Times, on Friday, Iran fired warning shots at ships in the strait and broadcast a radio message linking safe passage to a set of conditions, including lifting the naval blockade, the withdrawal of American forces, and stopping the escalation in Lebanon.
The British newspapers read this message in a broader context than just navigation, as the memorandum of understanding was signed between Washington and Tehran, while Israel remained outside it, and the Lebanon front remained able to return tension to the strait from another door.
The Times notes that any new Israeli military action in Lebanon may put the agreement to an early test, especially if Washington is unable to control its ally or prevent the confrontation from expanding.
The newspaper adds that Trump seemed aware of the sensitivity of this paper, as he linked his defense of the agreement to the pressure caused by closing the strait on the global economy and fuel prices in the United States, and he added that he feared being compared to Herbert Hoover, the 31st American president whose name was associated with the Wall Street collapse and the Great Depression.
Therefore, the newspaper does not believe that Washington’s rapid return to war is the most likely path, especially with the approaching midterm elections. However, this may not be enough to reassure shipping companies, as the danger may not come from a decision imposing an all-out war, but rather from an imbalance on one side of the equation.
