Zaidoon Alhadid is a journalist and political commentator based in Amman.

 

The debate is no longer centered solely on the possible closure of the Strait of Hormuz, It has shifted to a far more consequential question: who has the right to control one of the world's most strategic maritime corridors?

 

U.S. President Donald Trump's remarks about reimposing a naval blockade on Iran and introducing a 20% fee on all shipments passing through the strait suggest that the conflict has evolved beyond military confrontation into an attempt to redefine the rules governing international navigation.

 

This conclusion is reinforced by the response of Germany's Hapag-Lloyd, one of the world's largest shipping companies. Its reaction was more than a commercial objection it carried a clear political and economic message.

 

The company described imposing fees for passage through international waters as a "serious mistake," recognizing that accepting such a precedent would pave the way for transforming international straits from open waterways into instruments of taxation and political influence, ultimately threatening the global trading system.

 

In my view, this position is particularly significant because the objection did not come from a state competing with the United States, but from one of the most influential players in the global shipping industry.

 

It reflects growing concern within the maritime sector that freedom of navigation long regarded as one of the foundations of international trade could become a tool of political and economic pressure.

 

The position of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) further reinforces this perspective, The organization has stated that there is no legal basis for imposing mandatory fees simply for transiting an international strait and has expressed its opposition to such measures.

 

This indicates that the issue is no longer limited to maritime security, but has become a broader question about whether major powers remain committed to the legal principles that have underpinned global trade since the end of the Second World War.

 

It therefore appears that the conflict is entering a new phase one that extends beyond military force to redefining maritime influence itself, rather than seeking to close the Strait of Hormuz entirely, the objective may become controlling passage, imposing transit fees, or regulating vessel movement as a means of establishing a new political and economic reality.

 

In this context, control over maritime chokepoints becomes a source of power no less significant than control over territory.

 

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of this evolving landscape is not the prospect of higher oil prices, but the possibility that the world could move away from the principle of "freedom of navigation" toward one of "navigation in exchange for influence."

 

If this approach becomes entrenched, the Strait of Hormuz is unlikely to remain an isolated case.

 

Instead, it could become a model replicated across other strategically important waterways, meaning that future wars may be fought not only with missiles, but also through tariffs, blockades, and the control of global trade.