Nice. I wonder what the costs of reparations would be if the ceasefire were to end the war?

I’m 99% sure that if there is a deal where Iran collects a toll, it’s going to involve counting that toll (and/or sanctions relief, and/or unfreezing Iranian assets) as reparations. I would be very surprised if the US or Israel ever agree to direct payments to the Iranian government.

Truly an Art of the Deal - make countries that didn't choose to attack Iran... Pay for reparations.

With friends like Uncle Sam, who needs enemies?

For reference: This would almost triple their govts funds each year. One must also not forget that they're able to raise tolls in the future, both for monetary investment but also for negotiation purposes.

So we spent a ton of money and a bunch of people died to negotiate a much worse situation.

5D chess!

Making outrageous demands is normal in these negotiations. You can just look at what Hamas demanded during the ceasefires. What usually happens is no strong concessions from either side and hostilities just end. The regimes get to survive just in a badly degraded state.

Most importantly Iran can't afford to keep the strait closed to enforce this. If they block shipping their own will be blocked as well - which hasn't yet happened, they were still allowed to ship oil. Iran was already in terrible financial shape before the war and they aren't negotiating from a strong position of power to take those risks.

> Most importantly Iran can't afford to keep the strait closed to enforce this. If they block shipping their own will be blocked as well - which hasn't yet happened, they were still allowed to ship oil.

Why do you say this? During the war they set up a checkpoint system so their ships and ships they allowed to pass could still pass through.

Of course Iran wouldn't block its own ships at its own checkpoints, but the US is capable of easily interdicting Iranian shipping if it wants to.

this would be a worse crisis than we've just had; it'd put China (if not all of Asia) directly against the USA and would put Australia in a very peculiar spot.

While the crisis would be worse, I am not that sure that China will confront US on this militarily. So far they have stayed out of other's fights.

Iran charging a massive toll would also cause a crisis with the gulf states and they aren't going to tolerate it. This is much bigger than Iran vs US, and the idea they hold the cards for such a claim is mostly propaganda.

Just pointing out that for the volume of these ships, it's not really a massive toll. It's honestly a bargain, paid for in a really easy to stomach way by the people who allowed this to happen: Everyone else.

Doesn't explain why UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrian, and Saudis would tolerate a fee transiting the strait. Let alone why America would agree to that in negotiations given they have little incentive to agree to any large demands.

If that is agreed upon it's going to come with some concessions by Iran which is even less likely.

They'd tolerate it because they all poked a giant in the eye and it didn't go down. It's by far the cheapest route to peace any of them have.

USA could agree to it because it's not particularly dependent on that fuel supply and therefore would only pay the costs indirectly via market forces, which as the thief-in-chief pointed out, does (the parts he cares about of) their economy no harm as a net petroleum-product exporter, and above all else, they are losing the war.

Is that an argument for them not being to enforce the ayatollbooth or its price to remain reasonnable ?

Not quite, since they plan to share the revenue with Oman, or at least that’s what they’re currently claiming.

good for them, hopfeully they will be able to better protect themseves from rogue nations that don't respect international laws.

Who enforces "international laws" anyway?

We‘re still talking about the largest funding nation of terror cells mate

Trump cancelled the Iran deal, replaced it with nothing and now Iran has found an infinite money glitch.

100B/Year

How are they spinning this, that it is not Reparations?

"10. Iran to use Hormuz fees for reconstruction instead of reparations"

What is the splitting of hairs here?

I think reparations could be spent as they see fit. Reconstruction implies the money is going to exactly that.

But I agree it's a weird nitpick at this stage, as it seems almost impossible to verify once in place

No, the point is that instead of the US paying reparations from their own pocket they will allow Iran to tax Gulf countries.

That sentence is just worded badly, I would rewrite it as:

10. Iran to use Hormuz fees for reconstruction instead of demanding reparations from the US.

I think you're right, it's a bracketing ambiguity.

Rather than "Iran to use Hormuz fees for (reconstruction instead of reparations)" it's more likely to mean "Iran to use (Hormuz fees for reconstruction) instead of reparations"

Yeah, I think they want to do it this way, because Iran wants some compensation for damages, but paying reparations directly would be too humiliating for the US, and Trump would never agree to it.

Soon the dubai influencers will flock to Teheran.