๐จ๐The US rejected it. Now Washington is doing the same thing.
Our Chagos Islands analysis asked whether purchasing another nation's territory crossed a line. Our Philippines analysis examined whether American security guarantees inevitably come with strategic constraints. Our China series explored the selective application of international norms. Our ICC analysis documented Washington's rejection of international legal accountability. Today's Hormuz proposal brings those threads together. If the United States can claim the authority to charge commercial traffic for passage through an international waterway after rejecting similar claims by Iran, then the question is no longer simply about security. It becomes a question about who gets to define the rules of the international system, and whether those rules apply equally to everyone.
To understand how we arrived here, we have to go back.
For months, Washington's position was unambiguous.
Iran could not impose tolls on commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz because it is one of the world's most important international waterways. Freedom of navigation, the United States argued, is a principle that cannot be subordinated to the demands of any single country.
Now that position has changed.
President Donald Trump announced that the United States will become the "Guardian of the Strait of Hormuz" and impose a 20% fee on all cargo passing through it, while simultaneously reimposing a blockade on Iranian ports near the strait. Markets reacted immediately. Oil prices climbed. Stocks fell. The military confrontation that was already intensifying has now expanded into something even larger: a struggle over who has the authority to regulate one of the world's most vital maritime corridors.
Here is the question that deserves direct examination.
If Washington rejected Iran's claim to charge commercial traffic because the Strait of Hormuz is an international waterway governed by internationally recognized navigation principles, on what legal basis does the United States now claim the authority to charge every commercial vessel 20% for passing through the very same waterway?
That question is not rhetorical. It goes directly to the consistency of the legal principle itself.
The justification is security. The mechanism is economic control.
Trump argues that because the United States protects maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, it should be reimbursed for providing that security. Whether one agrees with that argument or not, it represents a fundamental departure from the position Washington has defended for decades: that international waterways should remain open to global commerce without unilateral charges imposed by individual states.
Iran has long argued that geography gives it special authority over the Strait because its coastline borders the northern side of the passage. The United States rejected that argument. Today, Washington is advancing a different claim, not based on geography, but on military power and security guarantees.
Different justification. Similar outcome.
The legal debate has not disappeared. It has simply changed speakers.
History has a habit of remembering moments when principles become conditional. This may become one of them.
For years, the United States defended the idea that no nation should be able to monetize one of the world's most critical international shipping lanes. Today, it is proposing that America do exactly that.
The question is no longer whether the Strait of Hormuz has become the center of a geopolitical struggle.
The question is who gets to write the rules governing it, and whether those rules apply equally to everyone.
One more thing is worth remembering. Before the first American bombs fell on February 28, there was no declared closure of the Strait of Hormuz. There were no repeated exchanges of strikes threatening one of the world's most important energy markets. Whatever anyone believes about why this war, the fact is, today's ripple effects flow from a single decision made by the US.
Melihat dari pengalaman pribadi saya yang sering mengikuti perkembangan geopolitik, perubahan posisi Amerika Serikat dalam isu Selat Hormuz memang sangat signifikan dan menimbulkan banyak spekulasi. Selat Hormuz bukan hanya jalur pelayaran biasa, melainkan salah satu koridor energi terpenting di dunia dengan volume minyak yang sangat besar setiap harinya melintasinya. Jadi wajar jika siapapun yang menguasai atau bisa mengatur jalur ini memiliki pengaruh besar dalam perekonomian global. Dalam beberapa tahun terakhir, saya menyaksikan bagaimana ketegangan antara AS dan Iran semakin meningkat, terutama terkait kebijakan militer dan ekonomi di wilayah ini. AS sebelumnya secara tegas menolak klaim Iran yang ingin memungut biaya atas kapal-kapal yang lewat. Namun kini AS justru melakukan hal yang sama dengan alasan memberikan jaminan keamanan. Hal ini menimbulkan pertanyaan kritis tentang konsistensi prinsip hukum internasional dan bagaimana kekuatan militer dapat mengubah aturan main. Pengalaman saya di dunia internasional mengajarkan bahwa ketika kekuatan besar mulai memodifikasi aturan unilateral untuk kepentingannya, negara-negara lain akan menghadapi dilema antara mengikuti aturan baru tersebut atau mempertahankan prinsip keadilan bersama. Secara pribadi, saya berpendapat bahwa situasi ini bisa memperburuk dinamika keamanan kawasan dan bahkan berpotensi memicu ketegangan lebih lanjut. Selain itu, melalui pengamatan, pasar juga merespons cepat keputusan ini, terlihat dari naiknya harga minyak dan turunnya saham yang menunjukkan ketidakpastian ekonomi akibat geopolitik yang semakin rumit. Ini bukan sekedar persaingan antara dua negara, melainkan pertarungan siapa yang memiliki hak untuk mengendalikan jalur pelayaran internasional yang vital, yang seharusnya dilindungi oleh aturan hukum universal. Oleh karena itu, bagi pembaca yang mengikuti isu global, penting untuk terus mengawasi perkembangan ini karena dampaknya tidak hanya terbatas pada politik, tapi juga keuangan dan stabilitas energi dunia. Sikap Amerika Serikat yang ingin memonetisasi Selat Hormuz ini membawa nuansa baru pada hubungan internasional yang selama ini berpegang pada prinsip kebebasan navigasi tanpa biaya sepihak. Saya berharap agar dialog dan solusi damai bisa ditempuh demi kepentingan bersama dunia internasional.
