Proponents of the administration's new policy argue that decisive action is required to protect the global economy from Iranian interference. By establishing a formal blockade and implementing a transit fee, the United States is taking responsibility for the security of a vital international waterway. Supporters contend that Iran has long used the threat of closing the strait as a geopolitical weapon, and this move effectively neutralizes that leverage.
From this viewpoint, the 20% toll is seen as a reasonable mechanism to fund the security operations necessary to keep the shipping lanes open. By formalizing the U.S. presence, the administration provides a clear deterrent against future harassment of commercial tankers. This approach shifts the burden of regional instability back onto the party responsible for the aggression, rather than allowing global trade to remain at the mercy of unpredictable threats.
Furthermore, advocates suggest that this policy sends a strong signal to international allies that the U.S. is committed to maintaining the rules-based order at sea. By securing the strait, the administration aims to stabilize energy prices in the long term by removing the risk premium associated with Iranian threats. This strategy is viewed as a necessary step to restore order and ensure that the flow of energy remains uninterrupted for the benefit of the global market.