Trump abandoned the proposal within hours after discussions with regional leaders. But before doing so, Iranian officials and commentators seized on it as implicit validation of a position Tehran has long advanced.
The debate began after Trump announced on Truth Social that the United States would collect a 20% charge on all cargo passing through the Strait of Hormuz to cover the costs of securing one of the world's most volatile maritime corridors.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi responded in English, arguing that the country responsible for ensuring safe passage through the strait is entitled to compensation.
"Whoever provides secure and safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz should be compensated for this service," he wrote. "Twenty percent is, of course, too much. We will be fair."
Tehran claims vindication
Hardline commentator Ehsan Hosseini argued that Trump's proposal undermined critics inside Iran who had insisted charging ships would violate international law.
"Trump says he will charge a 20% fee for ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz — roughly $15 per barrel of oil. Yet there are people in Iran's Foreign Ministry who insist that charging transit fees violates international law," he wrote.
Mostafa Faghihi, editor of the centrist Entekhab website, reached a similar conclusion, arguing that Trump had effectively legitimized Iran's longstanding position by presenting the charge as a security fee. He predicted many countries would nevertheless resist such a policy, potentially undermining Washington's own strategic interests.
Reformist journalist Ahmad Zeidabadi offered a different interpretation.
"I doubt Trump seriously intends to implement it," he wrote on Telegram. "More likely, he wants to encourage other countries to join the United States in confronting Iran in the Persian Gulf."
Zeidabadi also suggested Trump may have been attempting to undermine Iran's own proposal by making governments more wary of transit charges generally and linking any US withdrawal of the idea to a similar concession by Tehran.
Iran's Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, meanwhile, avoided commenting directly on the proposed fee but rejected the broader premise that Washington could organize maritime traffic through Hormuz.
It warned that any attempt by US forces to direct shipping outside routes designated by Tehran and without coordination with Iran's armed forces would face "strong resistance."
Iranian media presented the statement as a forceful response to Trump's announcement.
International pushback
The United Kingdom, Australia and Brazil rejected the proposal, arguing that international shipping through the Strait of Hormuz should remain free from transit charges.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) also dismissed the proposal, saying it had no legal basis under international law.
"We have always been consistent on our stance on fees—IMO stands firmly against charging fees for passage through straits used for international navigation," an IMO spokesperson said.
Online reactions reflected the same divide.
Some critics of the Iranian government argued that Trump's proposal differed fundamentally from Tehran's because Washington described it as payment for escort and security services rather than a transit toll.
One user wrote: "This isn't a toll. It's an escort fee for ships because of the insecurity we created ourselves. We've handed Trump exactly the justification he needed by repeatedly using the Strait of Hormuz as a negotiating tool."
Trump's proposal survived for only a few hours. But its political afterlife may prove longer.
By arguing that the power securing Hormuz was entitled to compensation, Trump handed Tehran a rhetorical opening to defend its own claims—even though neither country has convinced the world that one of its most important waterways can be treated as a source of unilateral revenue.
