Reporting is that Iran is going to charge tolls during this ceasefire. I don't understand how operators of ships can do that without violating sanctions and terrorism designations.

(And indeed, that same question would apply if tolls are made a permanent feature.)

rgag12 said:

---

Mac94 said:

---

MattAg84 said:

---

Mac94 said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Mac94 said:

---

Interesting that Trumps post says that the received 10 point plan the iranians put forward was the basis of the ceasefire. If its the one published... if thats what we're starting with ... Trump definitely blinked.

---

that is not what Trump's post actually said.

it's what you want to believe.

---

"We received a 10 point proposal from Iran, and believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate "

directly from his truth social post. Is he referring to the 10 point plan thsts been published? Thats the question. But it might be. But its there whether you want to pretend it isnt or didnt happen.

---

DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT A NEGOTIATION IS?! Nothing has been agreed to other than more talks and a temporary ceasefire while negotiations continue for 2 weeks. Stop with the obfuscation

---

We know two plans have been put forward ... our 15 point plan and the Iranian 10 point plan. We know the basics of both. We have pounded them and militarily dominated the fight ... we are hours from pulling the trigger on a massive attack with B52s reportedly in the air. The gun is loaded and pointed at their head, finger on the trigger .... and at the last minute there is this agreement. From such a dominate position why is ther even a possibility that the Iranians are the ones putting out the plan, possibility on their own terms. We hold the cards and IF their 10 point plan ia the one were using for negotiations we are handing them a huge propoganda victory. Why? They should be agreeing to OUR terms ... not setting them. Even it its just a starting point.

---

You realize the US could easily put out a statement saying Iran agreed to all our 15 points and we won.

Nothing anyone says means **** right now. The only main things tha have been agreed are that we won't bomb them for two weeks and Iran/Oman charge a toll through the strait for two weeks.

---

Except we didnt, Trump said it was an Iranian 10 point plan ... he already said it. Why? Being in such a dominate place why arent we demanding and settling the terms?

Keyno said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Did yall read the "truth" from Trump? It does not say that Iran is opening the Strait and it does not say that Iran agreed to a ceasefire.

---

yep, this bit is doing a lot of heavy lifting here:

Quote:

---

subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks.

---

---

Since posting that, I have seen some legit sources reporting that Iran has agreed to the 2 weeks

---

omg Iran wins, congrats. Go team blue.

---

Not really. No one has "won". The US strategic objectives have not been met (although Trump claims they have been), Iran's strategic objectives have not been met, and Israel's strategic objectives have not been met.

A ceasefire is not the end of conflict.

---

based on your posting history deciphering strategy isn't your strong suit.

---

Which countries strategic objectives have been met? What does 2 week ceasefire mean?

---

if both parties hold fast to their sides of the cease fire, specifically if we cease bombing and the cease blockading the strait - it means there is likely a longer term agreement that can be reached. If they continue to blockade the strait then we shall continue our operations until morale improves.

Ragoo said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Did yall read the "truth" from Trump? It does not say that Iran is opening the Strait and it does not say that Iran agreed to a ceasefire.

---

yep, this bit is doing a lot of heavy lifting here:

Quote:

---

subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks.

---

---

Since posting that, I have seen some legit sources reporting that Iran has agreed to the 2 weeks

---

omg Iran wins, congrats. Go team blue.

---

Not really. No one has "won". The US strategic objectives have not been met (although Trump claims they have been), Iran's strategic objectives have not been met, and Israel's strategic objectives have not been met.

A ceasefire is not the end of conflict.

---

based on your posting history deciphering strategy isn't your strong suit.

---

Which countries strategic objectives have been met? What does 2 week ceasefire mean?

---

if both parties hold fast to their sides of the cease fire, specifically if we cease bombing and the cease blockading the strait - it means there is likely a longer term agreement that can be reached. If they continue to blockade the strait then we shall continue our operations until morale improves.

---

Correct. This is a ceasefire. The US position, the Iranian position, and the Israeli position has not changed for 2 years. And nobody has budged. There is no truce, there is no treaty. This war is not over.

sounds like another war from the 50's, so did you know that the Korean War officially ended with an armistice on July 27, 1953. But a formal peace treaty was never signed, meaning that the two Koreas remain technically in a state of war.

Ragoo said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Did yall read the "truth" from Trump? It does not say that Iran is opening the Strait and it does not say that Iran agreed to a ceasefire.

---

yep, this bit is doing a lot of heavy lifting here:

Quote:

---

subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks.

---

---

Since posting that, I have seen some legit sources reporting that Iran has agreed to the 2 weeks

---

omg Iran wins, congrats. Go team blue.

---

Not really. No one has "won". The US strategic objectives have not been met (although Trump claims they have been), Iran's strategic objectives have not been met, and Israel's strategic objectives have not been met.

A ceasefire is not the end of conflict.

---

based on your posting history deciphering strategy isn't your strong suit.

---

Which countries strategic objectives have been met? What does 2 week ceasefire mean?

---

if both parties hold fast to their sides of the cease fire, specifically if we cease bombing and the cease blockading the strait - it means there is likely a longer term agreement that can be reached. If they continue to blockade the strait then we shall continue our operations until morale improves.

---

Correct. This is a ceasefire. The US position, the Iranian position, and the Israeli position has not changed for 2 years. And nobody has budged. There is no truce, there is no treaty. This war is not over.

---

and? What is your point? Can you not see that a cease fire is the correct next step between parties who don't trust each other? You *****ed earlier about the tone of trump's tweet about ending their civilization, and when the preferred alternative actually happened you still *****ed? My goodness, you are the intellectually dishonest in everything you post. Sometimes, just let the activities of the day lie.

---

You said "omg Iran wins, congrats. Go team blue."

I have been responding to that claim you made. Please calm down

Keyno said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Did yall read the "truth" from Trump? It does not say that Iran is opening the Strait and it does not say that Iran agreed to a ceasefire.

---

yep, this bit is doing a lot of heavy lifting here:

Quote:

---

subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks.

---

---

Since posting that, I have seen some legit sources reporting that Iran has agreed to the 2 weeks

---

omg Iran wins, congrats. Go team blue.

---

Not really. No one has "won". The US strategic objectives have not been met (although Trump claims they have been), Iran's strategic objectives have not been met, and Israel's strategic objectives have not been met.

A ceasefire is not the end of conflict.

---

based on your posting history deciphering strategy isn't your strong suit.

---

Which countries strategic objectives have been met? What does 2 week ceasefire mean?

---

if both parties hold fast to their sides of the cease fire, specifically if we cease bombing and the cease blockading the strait - it means there is likely a longer term agreement that can be reached. If they continue to blockade the strait then we shall continue our operations until morale improves.

---

Correct. This is a ceasefire. The US position, the Iranian position, and the Israeli position has not changed for 2 years. And nobody has budged. There is no truce, there is no treaty. This war is not over.

---

and? What is your point? Can you not see that a cease fire is the correct next step between parties who don't trust each other? You *****ed earlier about the tone of trump's tweet about ending their civilization, and when the preferred alternative actually happened you still *****ed? My goodness, you are the intellectually dishonest in everything you post. Sometimes, just let the activities of the day lie.

---

You said "omg Iran wins, congrats. Go team blue."

I have been responding to that claim you made. Please calm down

---

I was mocking you

[And that is out of bounds. We removed your last post where you did this. When you double downed and reposted it you earned some time off -- Staff]

Add to all of this that Iran likely cannot control their forces and therefore will eventually break the ceasefire. In my opinion, this would give Trump a new green light to begin the campaign again with the moral high ground. It also would very much muddy the 60-day time frame for actions as this would be a renewed set of actions.

This may also give politicians with power outside the regime time to consolidate and steer a new direction, although this is likely wishful thinking. I have a hard time believing things will go back to the way they were in Iran.

[Stop derailing this thread with trolls -- Staff]

Art of the deal baby

According to the AP, Iran and Oman will impose passage fees for transit through the Strait of Hormuz under Trump’s two-week ceasefire plan.

Iran will use the money for reconstruction.

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/mISUtRxj8B

— AF Post (@AFpost) April 8, 2026

The Collective said:

---

I'm not sure we agree with the 10 points or will be accepting them.

---

Guaranteed we don't.

Given that Iran likely has no real unified command at this point, I would expect the next 24 hours to be dicey and some missiles to be launched....and/or, the Houthi's/Hezbollah just being pissed off at a ceasefire agreement and trying to lob some things at Israel.

richardag said:

---

The Collective said:

---

I'm not sure we agree with the 10 points or will be accepting them.

---

Guaranteed we don't.

---

I tend to agree. All of Iran's demands are unacceptable to the US.

rca21978 said:

---

Agreeing to the Iranian 10 point plan is utter capitulation.

---

No one agreed to the Iranian 10 point plan, please cite your sources.

Keyno said:

---

richardag said:

---

The Collective said:

---

I'm not sure we agree with the 10 points or will be accepting them.

---

Guaranteed we don't.

---

I tend to agree. All of Iran's demands are unacceptable to the US.

---

Reconstruction money: Iran charges for straight passage...sounds like that one is already solved

Gigem314 said:

---

TxAG#2011 said:

---

rca21978 said:

---

Have you read the 10 point proposal? Why even use this as a basis for negotiations?

- Pay reparations
- Allow Iran to enrich uranium
- Remove US troops from the region
- Allow Iran to control SOH

If we agree to these terms, why did we even start a war?

---

Trump got completely cooked, and deep fried. We spent hundreds of billions and Iran has significantly expanded its geopolitical power.

---

Iran's leadership being decimated and their military/resources taking major hits is the opposite of "significantly expanded" power.

---

If they end up with long-term control of the Strait, and get to charge $2 million per vessel to pass through (even after splitting the proceeds with Oman), that will be handing them "significantly expanded" power. It will also lead to prices at the pump staying elevated to cover the transit fees.

I expect the transit fees, and the continued enrichment to be major sticking points in the upcoming negotiations. They still believe they have a "right" to enrich uranium, and claim the "fee" is to cover reconstruction of the stuff we have destroyed.

Keyno said:

---

Did yall read the "truth" from Trump? It does not say that Iran is opening the Strait and it does not say that Iran agreed to a ceasefire.

---

It also says the ceasefire is contigent upon "Iran is opening the Strait"...

japantiger said:

---

Keyno said:

---

richardag said:

---

The Collective said:

---

I'm not sure we agree with the 10 points or will be accepting them.

---

Guaranteed we don't.

---

I tend to agree. All of Iran's demands are unacceptable to the US.

---

Reconstruction money: Iran charges for straight passage...sounds like that one is already solved

---

They are saying Iran is charging 2MM for STRAIT passage during the 2 weeks. After the 2 weeks? I guess we will see

We will be watching like a hawk to see what moves where and who reveals where they are.

Ag with kids said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Did yall read the "truth" from Trump? It does not say that Iran is opening the Strait and it does not say that Iran agreed to a ceasefire.

---

It also says the ceasefire is contigent upon "Iran is opening the Strait"...

---

And how should we interpret "opening" here? If it means vessels that have been targeted because of some loose affiliation with us or the Israelis, now get to pass through at $2 million per vessel transit, will that be taken as their opening it up?

My guess is they get 2 weeks of oil shipped, then drop the hammer.

No way we have them on the mat and let them up without getting everything we want.

Those loons will do something stupid and give Trump all the cover he needs.

[Do not post X shots with obscenity -- Staff]

oldyeller said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

TxAG#2011 said:

---

rca21978 said:

---

Have you read the 10 point proposal? Why even use this as a basis for negotiations?

- Pay reparations
- Allow Iran to enrich uranium
- Remove US troops from the region
- Allow Iran to control SOH

If we agree to these terms, why did we even start a war?

---

Trump got completely cooked, and deep fried. We spent hundreds of billions and Iran has significantly expanded its geopolitical power.

---

Iran's leadership being decimated and their military/resources taking major hits is the opposite of "significantly expanded" power.

---

If they end up with long-term control of the Strait, and get to charge $2 million per vessel to pass through (even after splitting the proceeds with Oman), that will be handing them "significantly expanded" power. It will also lead to prices at the pump staying elevated to cover the transit fees.

I expect the transit fees, and the continued enrichment to be major sticking points in the upcoming negotiations. They still believe they have a "right" to enrich uranium, and claim the "fee" is to cover reconstruction of the stuff we have destroyed.

---

Hopefully someone smarter than me can answer this.

Are there any other straits or water passages in the world that are bordered by multiple countries, where a toll or passage fee is enacted to get through?

There are a handful of countries that have a boundary with the Persian Gulf that I think would have a very big problem with not being able to ship anything out on the water via the Strait of Hormuz without paying a fee to Iran/Oman.

Muslims are doing Taqqiyya because they don't want to get bombed.

They bought 2 more weeks. Knowing their nature, they will play some mischief and when Trump gets ready to bomb, they will play victim again and try to portray Trump as a crazy lunatic. That game failed, so it won't work

NYT doesn't even know what nato means…

I dunno but I doubt the world will stand for a toll fee. Those bordering nations, and other interested nations will build pipelines overtime to avoid anything Iran wants to contol.

Iran is walking a tight line, risking its total isolation on this front.

Trump didn't agree to Irans 10 point plan of ridiculousness. That was Iranian propaganda. Trump referenced a 10 point plan from Iran in his Truth post about the ceasefire as being something to work with in negotiations but we don't even know if that plan and the plan tweeted by Irans propaganda team that they said the US agreed to are even the same thing.

MelvinUdall said:

---

zb008 said:

---

No, they haven't, more like Trump capitulated to Iran. He lost his own stupid war he started.

---

What a dumba** take…

---

If only there were some key people left alive in the IRGC to celebrate their victory

Only one left, nearest to leadership is Mojtaba's pool boy.

I believe the "Strait" is in Iranian and Omani international waters

Who?mikejones! said:

---

I dunno but I doubt the world will stand for a toll fee. Those bordering nations, and other interested nations will build pipelines overtime to avoid anything Iran wants to contol.

Iran is walking a tight line, risking its total isolation on this front.

---

Most of the world will view a toll as explictly illegal under the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and have no appetite for it.

And I'll say again, I don't understand how one can pay the Iranians tolls without violating sanctions and terrorism funding rules.

T dizl televizl said:

---

oldyeller said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

TxAG#2011 said:

---

rca21978 said:

---

Have you read the 10 point proposal? Why even use this as a basis for negotiations?

- Pay reparations
- Allow Iran to enrich uranium
- Remove US troops from the region
- Allow Iran to control SOH

If we agree to these terms, why did we even start a war?

---

Trump got completely cooked, and deep fried. We spent hundreds of billions and Iran has significantly expanded its geopolitical power.

---

Iran's leadership being decimated and their military/resources taking major hits is the opposite of "significantly expanded" power.

---

If they end up with long-term control of the Strait, and get to charge $2 million per vessel to pass through (even after splitting the proceeds with Oman), that will be handing them "significantly expanded" power. It will also lead to prices at the pump staying elevated to cover the transit fees.

I expect the transit fees, and the continued enrichment to be major sticking points in the upcoming negotiations. They still believe they have a "right" to enrich uranium, and claim the "fee" is to cover reconstruction of the stuff we have destroyed.

---

Hopefully someone smarter than me can answer this.

Are there any other straits or water passages in the world that are bordered by multiple countries, where a toll or passage fee is enacted to get through?

There are a handful of countries that have a boundary with the Persian Gulf that I think would have a very big problem with not being able to ship anything out on the water via the Strait of Hormuz without paying a fee to Iran/Oman.

---

At its narrowest point, roughly 21 miles across, the Strait would be covered by the territorial waters of both Iran and Oman, which means any vessel transiting will be passing through the territorial waters of at least one of those two countries. So it becomes a freedom of navigation issue, which raises the question of local regulations.

T dizl televizl said:

---

oldyeller said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

TxAG#2011 said:

---

rca21978 said:

---

Have you read the 10 point proposal? Why even use this as a basis for negotiations?

- Pay reparations
- Allow Iran to enrich uranium
- Remove US troops from the region
- Allow Iran to control SOH

If we agree to these terms, why did we even start a war?

---

Trump got completely cooked, and deep fried. We spent hundreds of billions and Iran has significantly expanded its geopolitical power.

---

Iran's leadership being decimated and their military/resources taking major hits is the opposite of "significantly expanded" power.

---

If they end up with long-term control of the Strait, and get to charge $2 million per vessel to pass through (even after splitting the proceeds with Oman), that will be handing them "significantly expanded" power. It will also lead to prices at the pump staying elevated to cover the transit fees.

I expect the transit fees, and the continued enrichment to be major sticking points in the upcoming negotiations. They still believe they have a "right" to enrich uranium, and claim the "fee" is to cover reconstruction of the stuff we have destroyed.

---

Hopefully someone smarter than me can answer this.

Are there any other straits or water passages in the world that are bordered by multiple countries, where a toll or passage fee is enacted to get through?

There are a handful of countries that have a boundary with the Persian Gulf that I think would have a very big problem with not being able to ship anything out on the water via the Strait of Hormuz without paying a fee to Iran/Oman.

---

https://omareconomics.substack.com/p/the-illogicality-of-charging-tolls

Found a substack who claims that there are

"six widely recognized non-circumventable natural chokepoints: the Strait of Hormuz (Iran and Oman), Strait of Malacca (Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore), Bab al-Mandab (Yemen, Djibouti, and Eritrea), Turkish Straits - Bosporus, the Sea of Marmara, and the Dardanelles (Turkey), Danish Straits - the Great Belt, Little Belt, and the Sound (Denmark and Sweden), and the Strait of Gibraltar (Spain, Morocco, and Gibraltar)."

and apparently none of these charge for passage and that has been established maritime law since WW2

There are charges for some bodies of water for extra services (ie navigating ice waters in Russia), but none just for transit.

Iran has been apparently saying they are charging for "protection" which is basically a mafia tactic offering protection from yourself for a fee.

Only bodies of water (According to the substack) that charge a fee are manmade canals.