Let's say the US just withdraws from the Iran conflict without any peace deals, as suggested by the White House. Pack their bags and leave a battered but still fighting Iran that the rest of the Gulf states have to deal with on their own.
Credits to u/Pretend-Prune6285 for the napkin math that they posted elsewhere:
2% toll that Iran announced.
20 M bpd. 70$ a barrel.
20*70 =1,400 million $ a day= 1.4B a day
2% is $28M a day
365 * 28 =10,220 M = $10B a year
Iran current defense budget: Also about $10B a year.
And that's just oil. There's also LNG, fertilizer, aluminum, helium and other commodities that come in and out of the region. The Gulf states are heavily reliant on food imports.
Iran could also increase the tolls over time if left uncontested. And there's always the uncertainty of Iran seizing a vessel that failed their "toll audit".
The other implication is other countries may be emboldened to do the same in the future, such as a toll on the Red Sea, or Strait of Malacca which is the world's busiest shipping lane. Which country is going to implement said toll is not the question, it's whether if the US or others would militarily challenge it.
Or if the Gulf states cease relying on the petrodollar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrocurrency#1970_to_2000
President Richard Nixon and his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, in a series of meetings with the Saudi royal family, agreed that America would provide military protection for Saudi Arabia's oil fields while, in return, the Saudis would price their oil exclusively in United States dollars; the Saudis were to refuse all other currencies, except the U.S. dollar, as payment for their oil exports.[14][15]
Since the signing of these agreements[16] in 1971 and 1973, OPEC oil is generally quoted in US dollars.
Right now I'm treating the tolls as essentially a tariff on all exports and imports for the countries reliant on the strait.
For the US, it would be a gain for the domestic oil producers as they would be competing against what is essentially tariff'ed Gulf oil. A negative for everything else, such as the US agriculture importing a large volume of fertilizers from the Gulf states (farm input costs increase -> food prices increase) or the global semiconductor industry that is reliant on the helium.
Investing in a world without freedom of navigation (tolls setup on Strait of Hormuz and potentially others)
byu/Blueberryburntpie ininvesting
Posted by Blueberryburntpie
2 Comments
You’re framing this correctly as a “tariff on energy flows”, but the interesting part is how this shows up in actual company risk profiles.
If Hormuz effectively becomes a taxed corridor, it’s not just oil prices going up, it’s cost structure distortion across multiple industries:
* US shale producers benefit short term, but check filings, many still depend on global pricing benchmarks, so volatility increases more than margins stabilize
* Fertilizer supply chains get hit immediately, companies already flag “input cost volatility” in filings, this would amplify it
* Semiconductor supply chain is more fragile than people think, helium constraints are already mentioned in risk sections, this turns into a real bottleneck
* Shipping and insurance costs spike, and that flows into every import-heavy sector
The key point: this isn’t just a macro toll, it becomes a persistent margin pressure driver across industries that rely on stable global logistics.
What I’d watch is not oil price alone, but which companies start expanding their “geopolitical / supply chain disruption” sections in the next 10-Qs.
That’s where this scenario becomes real.
Depends on how much the toll is. 2% ok, 10% less ok.
A toll would likely see increased investment by gulf countries on alternative supply methods, like pipelines.
You’d see increased port building on non-strait ports.
Ultimately a 2% tariff would be tolerated