Skeptics warn that the draft Hormuz traffic agreement, which would hand inbound vessel control to Iran, carries significant risks for global shipping and regional security. They argue that concentrating authority in Tehran could open the strait to political manipulation and undermine established safety mechanisms.
Opponents highlight that Iran’s relationship with Western sanctions regimes remains fraught, raising the possibility that ships passing under Iranian oversight could become inadvertent targets of secondary sanctions. Shipping companies may face higher compliance costs or be forced to reroute, disrupting supply chains.
Security experts also point out that Iran’s maritime command structure is less transparent than the multinational framework currently in place. Without clear, independent verification, there is a danger that vessel inspections could be used to exert pressure on rival nations or to enforce selective trade restrictions.
The deal could also erode the role of the United States and allied navies, which have historically provided a deterrent against hostile actions in the region. Reducing their presence might embolden non‑state actors or increase the likelihood of accidental engagements.
Regional economies that depend on transit fees and stable oil flows could suffer if the perception of risk rises. Insurance premiums for Hormuz transits have already spiked in response to geopolitical uncertainty; a shift in control could exacerbate those costs.
Critics call for a more balanced approach that retains multinational monitoring while incorporating Iranian input, rather than a wholesale transfer of authority. They urge the International Maritime Organization to demand robust safeguards, independent oversight mechanisms, and clear dispute‑resolution procedures before any agreement is signed.
Until such protections are guaranteed, the opposition view maintains that the proposed deal threatens the delicate equilibrium that keeps one of the world’s most vital shipping lanes open and secure.