Iran’s move to redefine the legal status of the Strait of Hormuz from “transit passage” to “innocent passage” could have far-reaching consequences for global trade, maritime security and the geopolitical balance in the Middle East. The proposed shift, if implemented, would mark a significant departure from established international norms governing one of the world’s most critical shipping lanes.
The announcement was made by Iranian Ambassador to Bangladesh Jalil Rahimi Jahanabadi at a press conference in Dhaka, where he revealed that Tehran is taking legislative steps through its parliament, the Majlis, to formally redefine the strait’s legal framework. Such a move would effectively grant Iran greater regulatory authority over the waterway, long considered a global commons vital to uninterrupted international navigation.
A strategic artery of global trade
The Strait of Hormuz connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, serving as a lifeline for global energy markets. Bordered by Iran to the north and Oman and the United Arab Emirates to the south, the strait facilitates the transit of more than 20 percent of the world’s daily petroleum supply.
Prior to the escalation of hostilities following the US–Israel attacks on Iran, an estimated 11 million tonnes of energy products moved through the strait each day. Beyond oil and gas, it is also a key route for fertiliser, helium and other essential commodities, making it indispensable to global supply chains.
The strait’s geography further enhances Iran’s strategic leverage. Most vessels transit through deeper channels along the Iranian side, where water depth meets the requirements of large commercial ships. This natural advantage could amplify Tehran’s control if new legal restrictions are enforced.
From transit to “innocent passage”
Under the current framework of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, ships enjoy the right of “transit passage,” allowing continuous and unimpeded navigation through international straits. Iran’s proposed shift to “innocent passage” would fundamentally alter this regime.
“Innocent passage” permits foreign vessels to pass through territorial waters only if their movement is not deemed harmful to the coastal state’s security or interests. Activities such as military exercises, intelligence gathering, fishing, pollution or the launching of aircraft are prohibited under this principle.
If enforced, the new classification could require submarines to surface and identify themselves, while warships might need explicit permission from Tehran. Such restrictions would significantly alter naval mobility and could raise tensions in an already volatile region.
Trade and security implications
The economic implications of the proposed shift are substantial. Currently, ships transit the strait without paying fees. However, analysts suggest that Iran could introduce transit charges, increasing the cost of global shipping. Comparisons have been drawn with the Bosporus Strait, where Turkey levies fees on passing vessels.
Any additional costs or delays in the Hormuz corridor would likely drive up global energy prices and disrupt supply chains, particularly for import-dependent economies. Insurance premiums for vessels navigating the region could also surge amid heightened security risks.
From a military standpoint, tighter Iranian control could restrict the movement of foreign naval forces, particularly those of the United States and its allies. This would have significant implications for maritime security operations and freedom of navigation in the Gulf.
Geopolitical fallout
Historically, control over strategic waterways has reshaped global power dynamics. The Suez Crisis remains a notable example, when Egypt’s nationalisation of the Suez Canal triggered military intervention by Britain, France and Israel—ultimately ending in a political setback for European powers.
A similar scenario could unfold if Iran successfully enforces its proposed regime in the Strait of Hormuz. Failure by Washington to ensure open navigation could erode its influence in the region, while potentially strengthening Iran’s strategic standing.
Analysts believe that countries like China and Russia may support Iran diplomatically or strategically, further complicating the geopolitical landscape. Tehran’s growing assertiveness, coupled with its demonstrated military resilience, could reposition it as a central power in the Middle East.
Bangladesh’s strategic dilemma
For Bangladesh, the evolving situation presents both risks and strategic challenges. The country relies heavily on the Hormuz route for energy, fertiliser and other essential imports. Any disruption or policy shift affecting the strait could have direct economic repercussions.
Dhaka may need to recalibrate its foreign policy to maintain a delicate balance between key stakeholders, including the United States, Gulf nations and Iran.
The Iranian ambassador’s recent remarks expressing dissatisfaction with Bangladesh’s “ambiguous” stance on the ongoing conflict highlight the diplomatic sensitivities involved.
Despite the tensions, Tehran has assured the safety of Bangladeshi vessels navigating the strait. According to Ambassador Jalil Rahimi Jahanabadi, Iran is currently providing support to six Bangladeshi ships in the region, following a request from Dhaka. He described the assistance as part of Iran’s commitment to friendly nations.
Former rear admiral Md Khurshed Alam emphasised the need for a “critical balance” in Bangladesh’s foreign policy. “Dhaka must carefully navigate relations with Washington, Tehran and the Gulf states to safeguard its national interests,” he said.
Bangladesh has long maintained strong economic and development ties with the United States and Gulf countries. However, the shifting regional dynamics may require greater engagement with Iran to ensure uninterrupted access to critical supplies.
