Developments surrounding the reopening of the Hormuz Strait amid Iran's stance and regional responses

More than two days after the United States and Iran announced a ceasefire aimed at creating safe conditions to resume shipping through the Hormuz Strait, the outlook for normal operations on the world’s strategic energy route remains uncertain. While both sides initially signaled progress, ship traffic through the strait has not rebounded as expected, and Iran has continued to frame passage in terms that imply tighter control.

Shipping traffic has not returned to expected levels

From the ceasefire announcement on Tuesday, April 7 (U.S. time), to Thursday, April 9, the volume of oil and gas-carrier traffic through the Hormuz Strait had not recovered as anticipated, despite Iran’s earlier pledge to ensure maritime safety during the ceasefire.

Ship-tracking data cited by AP showed only four cargo ships passing through the Hormuz Strait with AIS active. Separately, AXSMarine data indicated 11 ships confirmed to pass through in the first 24 hours after the ceasefire took effect.

These figures may understate activity because they do not include the “dark fleet” of ships that switch off AIS to avoid sanctions tied to Iranian crude. Some sources also warned about “signal spoofing,” in which vessels display positions that do not reflect reality.

Iran signals unilateral control over reopening

The developments have fueled concerns that Iran is taking a hardline, unilateral approach to lifting any blockade-like restrictions on the Hormuz Strait, raising doubts about full implementation of the ceasefire. Analysts cited in the reporting say Tehran appears to be signaling that it alone controls when and how the shipping lane will reopen.

Alternate routes and mine-risk messaging

On April 9, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said it had established alternate shipping routes through the Hormuz Strait to reduce the risk of mines at sea. To date, information from multiple sources suggesting Iran has mined the strait since the conflict began has not been independently verified.

The IRGC said any vessel intending to pass through the Hormuz Strait should use the alternative routes to ensure maritime safety and avoid mine risk. Iran’s deputy foreign minister later stated that the strait remains open, but that ships must coordinate with Iran due to mine risks.

Coordination requirements and transit conditions

Soon after the IRGC statement, Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Khatibzadeh said that “anyone who coordinates with Iran’s side may pass,” according to a British TV channel in Tehran. He also later said Iran would permit passage only under “international standards and international law” if the United States ends military actions in the Middle East and Israel halts attacks on Lebanon. He described the April 8 Beirut bombardment as a “serious violation of the ceasefire.”

Transit fees and compliance demands raise additional concerns

Beyond navigation and mine-risk messaging, Iran also introduced new conditions. The reporting says Iran unexpectedly announced it would share transit fees with Oman for ships passing through the route during the two-week ceasefire. Tehran also stated that vessels could move only with coordination with Iran’s armed forces and in compliance with technical requirements issued by Iran.

The proposal drew strong global reactions because, historically, ships have not paid to pass through the Hormuz Strait. It was also viewed as contravening the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Oman and Gulf states push back

Oman quickly rejected Iran’s claim that the two countries would jointly charge transit fees during the ceasefire period. The rejection suggests Muscat wants to clarify its position while reaffirming that Oman adheres to Law of the Sea principles, under which ships do not have to pay fees to pass through natural sea routes.

Qatar also emphasized that the strait is naturally open and shared by all. Qatar’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Majed al-Ansari said there has “never been a need to establish such a mechanism,” adding that it is a naturally open maritime route used for the common interests of countries in and outside the region.

Abu Dhabi’s state oil company ADNOC’s chief Sultan Al Jaber called for reopening the Hormuz Strait “unconditionally,” arguing that passage remains restricted and under Iran’s control. He said Iran is sending a message that transit depends on its permission and conditions, which he characterized as not “freedom of navigation.”

International reactions and legal framing

Earlier, in an interview with ABC News on the morning of April 8, President Trump proposed a “joint venture” with Tehran to collect fees from ships passing through Hormuz, prompting reactions from the European Union. Brussels said it firmly rejects any attempt by Iran or the United States to collect fees from ships passing through the strait, while noting that the final decision on whether to accept fees rests with affected businesses.

On April 9, a European Commission spokesperson told Euronews that international law guarantees freedom of navigation and that ships do not have to pay fees to pass through the waterway. The spokesperson said the Hormuz Strait is a public asset of all humanity and that freedom of navigation needs to be restored soon.

Impact on the ceasefire’s shipping objective

With traffic levels not rebounding in the immediate aftermath of the ceasefire announcement, and with Iran continuing to tie passage to coordination, mine-risk routing, and compliance conditions, the reporting suggests the parties are interpreting the ceasefire terms—particularly restoration of navigation through Hormuz—very differently. The dispute over fees, control mechanisms, and legal principles is likely to remain central to whether shipping through the strait can normalize during the two-week pause.