On the morning of April 8, Trump gave an interview to ABC News. When asked whether he would allow Iran to charge tolls for ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, Trump stated:

"We are considering operating it in a joint venture format. This would be a way to secure the strait while also preventing interference from many other powers."

"It's a wonderful thing."

This statement came as a sudden surprise and can be seen as a product of the Trump administration's urgent search for a dignified "exit strategy" amid military stalemate and enormous war costs. It frames complex geopolitical maneuvering as a commercial transaction—essentially trading economic incentives for Iran’s concessions on nuclear issues and ensuring freedom of passage through the Strait of Hormuz. However, the proposal faces massive challenges on legal, economic, and geopolitical fronts, making it more akin to a bargaining chip than a mature policy.

According to the disclosed plan, the U.S. and Iran intend to commercialize the management of the Strait of Hormuz. Both sides envision establishing a "joint venture" to collect "tolls" from vessels passing through the strait. Revenue is reportedly to be split 70% to the U.S. and 30% to Iran. In exchange, Iran would be required to maintain the strait’s open navigation and possibly relinquish certain nuclear demands, while the U.S. would commit to ceasing hostilities and lifting some sanctions.

Great in theory, hard in practice

Despite Trump calling it a "wonderful thing," this scheme faces serious challenges:

* International law dilemma: The Strait of Hormuz is a vital international waterway; unilateral toll collection has drawn opposition from multiple countries. Although neither the U.S. nor Iran has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which could otherwise provide legal cover, such action might set a dangerous precedent for other strategic waterways around the globe.

* Economic feasibility questionable: At its core, this amounts to shifting war costs onto global consumers—high fees will ultimately drive up global energy prices. Meanwhile, regional actors in the Gulf strongly oppose funneling large sums of money “to support” Iran.

* Geopolitical risks: The proposal has raised concerns across multiple quarters. Gulf states view it as a threat and may respond militarily, while Israel may fear losing interests and sabotage the agreement.

In short, this "joint venture" proposal resembles a Trump-style business negotiation tactic—an attempt to break through the deadlock under dual pressures of military and diplomatic strain. While highly dramatic, its chances of actual implementation remain extremely slim given the formidable real-world obstacles in law, economics, and geopolitics.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1861912260873216/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.