Iran's ambassador to China stated on Saturday that the Islamic Republic would impose service fees on vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz, but that China and other "friendly" countries would be granted "special considerations."
During a speech at the World Peace Forum in Beijing on Saturday, Iranian Ambassador Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli affirmed that Iran was working in "collaboration and cooperation" with Oman on "new arrangements" for the strait.
via Associated PressShips passing through Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world's oil exports moved before the US-Israeli war on Iran, must travel along Iranian territory to the north and Omani territory to the south.
"As a country where the Hormuz is part of its territorial waters, we will definitely charge service fees," Fazli said. However, the fee would not be a "toll," he added, as tolls are considered illegal under international maritime law. Instead, the fees would be for security and administration.
"These new arrangements will be concerning guaranteeing the security of passage through the Straits of Hormuz, supervision of the passage of the vessels … and also guaranteeing and dealing with the environmental consequences of the massive number of ships," he stated.
Iran's NourNews agency quoted the ambassador as saying that "special considerations" would be applied to China and other friendly nations when determining the level and type of service fees charged for their vessels.
Beijing began importing large amounts of Iranian crude in the early 1990s as China industrialized and sought new energy sources to shift away from coal.
Beijing's purchases typically account for roughly 90 percent of Iran's oil exports, providing tens of billions of dollars in annual revenue that support Iran's government and military. To bypass US economic sanctions, much of the oil is transported using trans-shipment hubs and a shadow tanker fleet to obscure its origins.
The Strait of Hormuz was closed by Iran after the US and Israel launched an unprovoked war on the Islamic Republic on February 28.
In April, as energy prices soared, the US responded by imposing a naval blockade on Iran's southern ports to attempt to halt Iranian oil exports.
The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by Iran and the United States on June 15 to halt hostilities stipulated that commercial ships would be allowed to transit through the Strait of Hormuz free of charge for 60 days. Fazli added that new arrangements regarding Hormuz would be made in cooperation with Oman.
Last month, Oman proposed that ships transit the strait via a new southern route close to its coast and a new northern route along Iran's coast, while the central route through the strait is de-mined. Omani officials worked with the UN's International Maritime Organization (IMO) to develop the plans.
However, Iran rejected plans for the southern route, which would have been overseen by the US, saying it would violate Clause 5 of the MoU.
On Thursday, Iranian forces attacked a Singaporean ship attempting to pass through the southern Omani route, causing the IMO to abandon the effort.
The last 24 hours in the Strait of Hormuz are a doozy.
At the start of the clip, you will see many of the vessels that were going through the Oman route take the Iran route instead.
Now there's something I should probably point out. In the last week or so, US escorts through… pic.twitter.com/rK1iKRtrYm
On Friday, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf announced Iran and Oman had reached an agreement on the joint management and regulation of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz.
Tehran has repeatedly vowed that the strait will not return to its pre-war status despite an illegal US blockade on its ports and attempts to undermine Iranian control of the waterway.
"Hormuz is defined under Iran's command, not CENTCOM," Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister and top negotiator Kazem Gharibabadi said in a statement on July 2nd.
Tyler Durden Sun, 07/05/2026 - 19:50The superyacht season across the Caribbean and the Gulf of America has shifted into the off-season, with hurricane season now roughly a month in. As tropical activity risks rise across the Atlantic basin, some owners and charter fleets have shifted pleasure yachts and sailboats toward the Mediterranean, where the summer season is now in full swing.
Ship-tracking and maritime intelligence platform MarineTraffic tracked the great migration of superyachts, including 2,156 departures of pleasure craft and sailing vessels from top Caribbean hubs between March and June. Of these, 161 showed a clear signal for an Atlantic, European, or Mediterranean route.
Out of 2,156 pleasure craft and sailing vessel departures recorded between March and June 2026 from Barbados, Guadeloupe, Martinique, the US Virgin Islands, St Barths, Antigua, the British Virgin Islands, and St Martin / St Kitts / St Lucia, 161 movements showed a clear Atlantic, European or Mediterranean route signal.
The departure side is concentrated in a handful of familiar yachting hubs. Martinique led with 48 movements (29.8%), followed by Antigua with 37 (23.0%), Saint-Martin with 23 (14.3%), Guadeloupe with 17 (10.6%), and the U.S. Virgin Islands with 14 (8.7%). At port level, Le Marin stood out as the main starting point.
MarineTraffic described the journey to Europe as less of a direct sprint and more of a staged migration:
The journey is rarely direct. Many vessels cross the Atlantic in stages, using Bermuda and the Azores as natural waypoints before continuing toward southern Europe and the western Mediterranean. Horta is the main mid-Atlantic stop, accounting for 28 vessels, followed by St George's, Bermuda with 9, and Ponta Delgada with 3, reflecting the classic Caribbean–Azores–Europe crossing pattern. Once in European waters, vessels fan out toward key Mediterranean yachting hubs, led by Palma de Mallorca with 12 vessels, followed by smaller flows into Barcelona, Genoa, Ibiza, Monaco and Tivat.
The timing underlines the seasonal nature of the migration. May was the busiest month, accounting for 73 of the 161 movements (45.3%), ahead of April (33), June (32) and March (23). The fleet is dominated by sailing vessels, which account for 109 movements (67.7%), while pleasure craft represent 52 (32.3%). In the clearest crossing records, vessels had already travelled an average of around 2,700 nautical miles at roughly 6.6 knots, with some Caribbean-to-Palma routes extending to around 3,680 nautical miles.
The journey of pleasure craft from the Caribbean to the Mediterranean
As the Caribbean winter season gives way to the Mediterranean summer, pleasure craft begin one of the most visible seasonal repositioning patterns at sea. Using #MarineTraffic data, we can trace how these… pic.twitter.com/oQoGr1HhUp
The Atlantic hurricane season ends at the end of November and December is typically when superyachts begin returning to the Caribbean and Gulf of America for the holiday rush. That marks the start of the Caribbean's prime time charter window, with peak Caribbean yachting season running through April as owners and charter fleets shift back from the Mediterranean.
Tyler Durden Sun, 07/05/2026 - 19:15Below is my column in the Wall Street Journal on the bizarre claim of Gov. Gavin Newsom and others that the Framers would have supported wealth taxes, including the proposed Billionaire’s Tax. It is a claim that seeks to mask the economically unwise with the historically unfounded. The Framers sought to protect property from legislative redistributive impulses. James Madison wrote that the bicameral system, and particularly the Senate, “ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” That does not sound like an ally of Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna.
Was James Madison the Zohran Mamdani of his time? Gavin Newsom appears to think so. In joining the growing number of Democratic leaders supporting a wealth tax, the California governor claimed that the U.S. Constitution and our Founders were all about wealth distribution: “The system America’s founders built,” he said, “was designed to prevent the concentration of power in a few hands, but we have allowed that concentration to happen anyway, slowly, in plain sight, over decades.”
The only problem with this argument is that it is utterly and demonstrably false. The Madisonian democracy is designed to avoid the concentration of political power, not the concentration of wealth.
The Founders were great believers in capitalism and the free market. In my recent book, “Rage and the Republic,” I discuss the economic philosophy of the Founders in exploring the history and future of this unique republic. This isn’t simply the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence but also the anniversary of the publication of Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations,” which the Founders embraced.
Many of the Founders were themselves quite wealthy, including banker Robert Morris Jr., who was known as the “Financier of the Revolution” and would be a billionaire today.
Our revolution was the first true Enlightenment revolution, heavily influenced by writers such as John Locke, who believed in a natural right to property. That right came not from the government, but from God, and “excludes the common right of other Men.”
That Lockean principle was manifest in George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was a basis for the Declaration of Independence. It extolled “the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”
James Madison drafted protections from government seizure of property, including the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires compensation for any property taken by the government.
The Constitution not only protects property, but was later amended to allow for income taxes rather than wealth taxes.
Far from supporting a wealth tax, the constitutional system referenced by Mr. Newsom makes a federal wealth tax unconstitutional.
Mr. Newsom’s recent endorsement of a national wealth tax was likely meant to blunt the outrage over his opposition to the resolution to create a state Billionaires’ Tax on the coming November ballot.
California has reportedly lost trillions of dollars in the exodus of billionaires and other wealthy taxpayers fleeing the high taxes and class politics of the state. Mr. Newsom knows that this draining of wealth spells doom for his state, which is already grappling with a massive, growing deficit. He offered a curious argument for opposing the state wealth tax: “You may not be able to pick up and move to Texas or Florida to shelter your income from taxation, but I promise you that billionaires can, and do.”
The argument suggested that most citizens are effectively a captive population to be culled by California leaders, dupes who are unable to escape a state with a deadly combination of some of the highest taxes and highest living costs in the nation.
Unions and others pushed the Billionaire Tax to avoid budget cuts and fund the state’s runaway expenditures, from pension funds to projects such as the infamous high-speed train to nowhere.
To deal with California’s reverse Gold Rush, drafters made the proposed Billionaire Tax retroactive to claw back money from those who have escaped.
The national Billionaire Tax pushed by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) seeks to cut off any escape for the wealthy short of leaving the country. When she ran for president, Ms. Warren warned the wealthy that she was coming for “your Rembrandts, your stock portfolio, your diamonds and your yachts.”
Of course, this assumes that the wealthy would be little more than passive prey in a hunt by the Internal Revenue Service. That is precisely what socialists thought in France decades ago, before an exodus from the country that, along with other socialist policies, brought it to near economic ruin. It was later rescinded.
Nevertheless, wealth taxes make for great politics. What is concerning is that, in addition to a wealth tax, Democratic leaders like Ms. Warren are pledging to pack the Supreme Court if they retake power. A packed court with an insistent liberal majority would let the Democrats push through measures that would otherwise be declared unconstitutional, including a wealth tax.
Congress could then gradually lower the level of wealth needed to trigger the tax, opening up the homes and estates of citizens as an untapped reservoir of money for the taking.
“You’re next” could then apply not just to office holders but to property owners in a push to redistribute wealth.
That strategy may well unfold in coming years, but it will be the realization of a Mamdanian, not a Madisonian, system.
Mr. Turley is a law professor at George Washington University and author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Tyler Durden Sun, 07/05/2026 - 18:40