Shipowners are seeking urgent clarification on the terms of a newly declared ceasefire between Iran and the United States that could reopen the Strait of Hormuz, as more than 800 vessels remain stranded following weeks of disruption to one of the world’s most critical energy corridors.

The partial shutdown of the strait, triggered by escalating conflict after US and Israeli strikes, has severely constrained maritime traffic through the narrow passage that connects the Arabian Gulf to global markets. Iran subsequently tightened its control over the waterway, leading to a near-total halt in shipping activity as security risks mounted.

Shipowners and operators have kept vessels anchored on both sides of the strait amid repeated attacks and the absence of guarantees for crew safety. The disruption has left a significant portion of the global tanker fleet immobilized, intensifying concerns over energy supply chains and freight logistics.

A ceasefire agreement announced shortly before a deadline set by Donald Trump has raised expectations of a temporary reopening. However, conflicting statements from Washington and Tehran have left critical operational details unresolved.

Iranian authorities have indicated that safe passage will be permitted for a period of two weeks, coordinated with their armed forces and subject to what they described as “technical restrictions.” In contrast, Trump characterized the agreement as enabling a “full, immediate, and safe opening” of the waterway. It remains unclear whether both sides have agreed on transit conditions, including any fees or procedural requirements imposed by Tehran.

The lack of clarity has prompted a cautious response across the shipping industry. The Japan Shipowners’ Association said it would first verify the terms of the agreement before advising its members on resuming operations. Industry participants broadly indicated that vessels would not begin moving until security assurances are substantiated.

Even under favorable conditions, analysts say restoring normal traffic flows will take time. In typical circumstances, approximately 135 ships transit the Strait of Hormuz each day, but volumes have fallen sharply during the crisis. Restarting operations involves coordination among shipowners, insurers, port authorities, and naval forces, all of whom must reassess risk levels before authorizing movement.

Jennifer Parker, an assistant professor at the Defense and Security Institute at the University of Western Australia, said the process cannot be immediate. She noted that stakeholders require evidence of sustained de-escalation rather than a temporary pause in hostilities before committing vessels and crews to transit.

Data from Kpler indicates that energy shipments account for a large share of the stranded fleet. Currently, 426 crude oil and refined fuel tankers are waiting in Gulf waters, along with 34 liquefied petroleum gas carriers and 19 liquefied natural gas vessels. Additional ships carrying dry bulk commodities and containerized cargo are also affected, reflecting the impact on multiple sectors of global trade.

The الأزمة has also created significant humanitarian concerns for maritime workers. According to the International Maritime Organization, around 20,000 civilian sailors are stranded aboard vessels in the region, including support and service ships. The agency has warned of mounting challenges related to supply shortages, fatigue, and psychological stress among crews who have been unable to disembark or proceed with their voyages.

For shipowners, the immediate priority remains clarity on operational protocols under the ceasefire framework. Questions persist over navigation corridors, coordination mechanisms with Iranian forces, insurance coverage, and liability in the event of renewed hostilities.

The Strait of Hormuz handles a substantial share of global oil shipments, making its accessibility central to energy market stability. Any prolonged disruption has direct implications for supply flows and price volatility, amplifying the importance of a clear and enforceable agreement.

While the ceasefire has introduced a potential pathway to easing the crisis, the absence of detailed, mutually verified terms continues to delay decision-making across the shipping industry, leaving hundreds of vessels and thousands of seafarers in a state of prolonged uncertainty.

The statement, issued by Iran’s foreign ministry and shared with IMO member states and non-governmental organizations, said vessels that do not “participate in or support acts of aggression” against Iran would be permitted safe passage through the strategic waterway, subject to adherence to safety and security regulations.

However, it specified that vessels, equipment, and assets belonging to what it described as “aggressor parties” including the United States and Israel would not qualify for what it termed “innocent or non-hostile passage.

”Iran said responsibility for any disruption or escalation in the Strait of Hormuz lay with Washington and Tel Aviv, accusing them of waging an “unlawful and destabilising war” that has heightened risks to international shipping and regional stability.

The statement reflects Tehran’s position as tensions remain elevated following the outbreak of war triggered by U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28.

The Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints, has been effectively closed since the escalation, contributing to sharp increases in global oil and gas prices.

Iran’s conditional reopening for select vessels introduces limited operational clarity for commercial shipping, though the exclusion of U.S. and Israeli-linked assets underscores the continuing strategic and geopolitical risks in the region.

Trump told reporters at the White House that U.S. officials were engaged with “the right people” in Iran and suggested Tehran was eager to reach an agreement.

A source familiar with the matter confirmed that Washington had transmitted a multi-point proposal aimed at halting the conflict, now in its fourth week following U.S. and Israeli strikes launched on February 28.Iranian authorities denied that direct negotiations were underway.

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf dismissed reports of talks as “fake news,” underscoring persistent gaps between public positions and diplomatic signals.

According to media reports cited by regional outlets, the U.S. proposal includes provisions for dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, ending support for proxy groups, and reopening the Strait of Hormuz. A month-long ceasefire has also been discussed to facilitate negotiations, though no official confirmation of those terms has been issued by Washington.

Trump said Iran had made a “valuable concession” linked to non-nuclear energy and maritime transit through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint through which roughly 20% of global oil supply typically flows. He did not provide details.

Iran informed the United Nations Security Council and the International Maritime Organization that non-hostile vessels could transit the strait if coordinated with Iranian authorities, according to a note seen by Reuters. The waterway has effectively been shut since the outbreak of hostilities, triggering a sharp global energy supply disruption.

Despite diplomatic signals, military activity has continued on all sides. Two sources said the United States is preparing to deploy thousands of troops from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East, adding to approximately 50,000 U.S. personnel already stationed in the region.

The deployment would accelerate a broader military buildup, heightening concerns among analysts and regional actors that the conflict could become prolonged even as negotiations proceed.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said his government was willing to host talks between Washington and Tehran, expressing support for dialogue aimed at achieving a comprehensive settlement.

A Pakistani government source said discussions about a potential meeting were at an advanced stage, though no agreement had been finalized.Pakistan maintains longstanding ties with Iran and has recently strengthened engagement with the United States, positioning itself as a potential intermediary.

The latest developments come a day after Trump delayed threatened strikes on Iranian power infrastructure, citing “productive” discussions, while Oman, which has acted as a mediator, previously indicated that progress had been made in earlier negotiations before the outbreak of conflict.

Ali Mousavi, Iran’s representative to the United Nations’ maritime agency, made the remarks in an interview published on Friday by China’s Xinhua news agency, prior to U.S. President Donald Trump’s warning that Iranian power infrastructure could be targeted if the strategic waterway was not kept “fully open” within 48 hours.

Mousavi, who also serves as Iran’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, said ships not associated with Iran’s adversaries would be permitted to transit the strait, provided they coordinate security and safety arrangements with Tehran.

He added that Iran would continue working with the International Maritime Organization to ensure maritime safety and the protection of seafarers in the Gulf region.The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow passage between Iran and Oman, handles roughly one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments, making it one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints.

Concerns over potential Iranian attacks during the ongoing U.S.-Israeli military campaign have already deterred many vessels from using the route, raising the risk of disruptions to global energy supplies.

Mousavi said diplomacy remained Tehran’s priority but emphasized that a “complete cessation of aggression” and the restoration of mutual trust were essential. He attributed the current situation in the strait to what he described as Israeli and U.S. attacks against Iran.

Trump’s earlier warning has heightened fears of further escalation in the region, with shipping security and energy market stability closely tied to developments in the waterway.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has delayed its decision on a global carbon price for shipping by a year — a move aimed at fostering broader consensus and ensuring fair participation from all nations, including major maritime and energy stakeholders.

In a decision that underscores the complexity of global climate negotiations, the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization (IMO) has voted to extend discussions on introducing a global carbon pricing mechanism for shipping.

The one-year delay, while seen by some as a setback, is being viewed by others as an opportunity for deeper dialogue, broader alignment, and the development of a more inclusive framework that balances economic growth with environmental responsibility.

The IMO, which regulates international shipping safety, security, and environmental standards, convened in London this week to deliberate on a proposal to implement a global carbon price.

The measure, backed by the European Union and several developing economies such as Brazil, sought to create a structured mechanism to reduce carbon emissions in the maritime industry — a sector responsible for nearly 3% of global CO₂ emissions.

While the proposal gained substantial support, it faced resistance from major oil producers, including the United States and Saudi Arabia, who emphasized the need for a more comprehensive approach that does not disproportionately impact trade-dependent economies or energy security.

Following extensive discussions, a motion introduced by Saudi Arabia to postpone the decision for one year was passed by a majority of 57 countries, with 49 voting against.

The decision to delay, though initially perceived as a disappointment by environmental advocates, highlights a broader recognition among nations that sustainable climate policy must be inclusive, equitable, and economically viable.

Officials close to the negotiations said that the additional time would allow the IMO and its 176 member states to explore innovative financial models and ensure that developing nations — many of which rely heavily on maritime trade — are not unfairly burdened by new carbon costs.

“Global shipping must decarbonize, but it must do so in a way that is fair and feasible for all,” an IMO delegate explained. “This pause offers the chance to align ambitions with capabilities and to design a policy that works for both developed and emerging economies.”

Industry Reaction: Hope for a Stronger Framework

The shipping industry’s response has been measured. While some companies expressed concern about the delay, others viewed it as a window to refine the details of a practical carbon framework.

Danish shipping giant Maersk, a pioneer in sustainable maritime transport, said the IMO’s decision represented a temporary pause rather than a loss of momentum. The company reaffirmed its commitment to decarbonization and expressed optimism that the coming year could lead to clearer, stronger global guidelines.

“The delay leaves the shipping sector in uncertainty for now,” said Faig Abbasov, Director of Shipping at Transport & Environment, an environmental group. “But it also offers an opportunity for nations to align on a coherent, science-based framework that can truly drive progress.”

For many industry leaders, clarity and predictability remain key. The proposed carbon pricing framework is expected to create a level playing field by incentivizing innovation, promoting alternative fuels, and encouraging investments in modern, energy-efficient vessels. Experts believe that, once finalized, such a system could unlock billions in green investments and accelerate maritime decarbonization efforts.

The extension also reflects the reality that the maritime industry operates across borders and relies on coordinated global standards. Introducing a carbon price requires consensus among diverse economies with different industrial bases and energy profiles. The year-long delay gives policymakers and industry representatives additional time to address concerns and refine technical details.

Analysts say the debate around carbon pricing is not about resistance to climate goals but about ensuring that the framework supports long-term growth. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia — two of the largest oil producers — have emphasized that any new environmental measure should avoid triggering sudden cost shocks in global trade, especially as developing nations strive to recover from economic disruptions.

Meanwhile, the European Union and climate-conscious countries have expressed hope that the extended timeline will allow for constructive engagement and eventual alignment. Brazil, Greece, and Japan — all key maritime nations — are expected to play pivotal roles in shaping the revised plan, which could serve as a model for other high-emission industries.

Toward a Cleaner and Fairer Shipping Future

The IMO’s decision to continue consultations reflects a maturing understanding of how global environmental governance must evolve — through collaboration, inclusivity, and shared responsibility. The shipping sector, which carries nearly 90% of the world’s trade, stands at the center of this transformation.

While a global carbon price may not arrive immediately, the current process is laying the groundwork for a more stable and equitable transition to cleaner seas. The coming months are expected to see intense technical work, public consultations, and renewed efforts by both governments and private companies to shape a sustainable future for maritime trade.

As one IMO official concluded, “This is not a retreat — it’s a recalibration. Real progress requires unity, and unity takes time.”

The proposal, backed by an EU-led coalition including Britain, China, and Japan, aims to create a fair and effective mechanism to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from one of the world’s most polluting industries.

The initiative, which could generate an estimated $11 billion to $12 billion annually between 2028 and 2030, is seen by environmental experts as a crucial move toward achieving net-zero emissions in global maritime transport.

The funds raised from the levy would be directed to the IMO Net-Zero Fund — a global pool designed to support cleaner technologies, greener fuels, and sustainable maritime infrastructure, particularly in developing countries.

Although the United States has expressed reservations about the measure, the broader international response has been optimistic.

European Union member states have strongly endorsed the proposal, with the European Commission emphasizing that such collective efforts are essential to achieving long-term environmental goals and meeting the commitments of the Paris Climate Agreement.

According to the draft policy, the carbon pricing system would apply to ships weighing over 5,000 tons. Those exceeding emission thresholds would either purchase offset units or pay a penalty, while ships emitting below a certain level would earn credits or “surplus units.”

This balanced approach rewards innovation and efficiency while encouraging shipowners to invest in cleaner, more sustainable technology.

Industry analysts say this policy could become a turning point for global shipping. The sector, responsible for nearly 3% of global carbon emissions, has long faced challenges in adopting environmentally friendly practices due to the lack of a unified global framework.

The IMO’s proposed emissions levy seeks to change that by establishing clear, measurable standards that apply equally to all member nations.

While the United States has cautioned that it may respond with “reciprocal measures,” the ongoing discussions are expected to pave the way for constructive dialogue rather than division. Many experts view the debate as part of a necessary global conversation on balancing economic interests with environmental responsibilities.

Several nations have also pointed out that sustainable shipping can drive innovation, create new jobs, and open markets for cleaner fuel alternatives such as hydrogen and ammonia.

European leaders have praised the initiative for combining accountability with opportunity. “The maritime sector must play its role in the green transition,” the European Commission said in a statement on October 12.

“This proposal is not about penalizing shipping but about steering it toward a more resilient and sustainable future.”

The IMO’s upcoming decision has also gained support from environmental organizations and researchers worldwide. A study by University College London estimated that the fuel emissions standard would significantly cut global maritime emissions by incentivizing operators to modernize fleets and invest in clean fuel technologies.

The revenues, if managed transparently, could accelerate the transition to net-zero operations while ensuring fairness for developing nations dependent on maritime trade.

Stakeholders from across the industry — including shipbuilders, port authorities, and energy companies — are already preparing for the shift.

The move toward cleaner fuel alternatives and energy-efficient vessels is expected to reshape global trade dynamics over the next decade, aligning the maritime industry with the world’s broader sustainability targets.

The IMO’s meeting in London thus represents not just a policy discussion but a global milestone in collective environmental responsibility. Should the carbon pricing system be approved, it will mark one of the most significant steps ever taken to make the shipping industry part of the solution to climate change.

With optimism growing among environmentalists, policymakers, and maritime leaders alike, the upcoming decision is widely seen as a beacon of hope for cleaner oceans, greener trade routes, and a sustainable global economy.

The comments came as the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a specialized United Nations agency, prepares to vote next week on its much-debated Net-Zero Framework — a global proposal aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions from the international shipping sector. The sector currently accounts for nearly 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions and handles close to 80% of world trade.

U.S. officials reaffirmed their commitment to sustainable shipping and innovation but expressed concerns about the proposed framework’s economic implications. In a joint statement, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said that while the United States supports the goal of reducing emissions, it will “oppose any international mechanism that unfairly penalizes trade, consumers, or energy accessibility.”

Encouraging innovation over taxation

According to U.S. officials, the administration prefers incentivizing innovation, technology, and cleaner fuels in the maritime industry rather than adopting measures that could lead to excessive costs or disrupt supply chains. “The administration supports responsible decarbonization through collaboration, technological advancement, and investment — not through punitive taxes or restrictive global mandates,” the statement read.

Officials also underscored that Washington remains open to working with international partners to craft an effective and equitable emissions reduction strategy that aligns environmental sustainability with economic stability.

“The maritime industry plays a crucial role in global connectivity and economic growth,” the statement continued. “Any transition toward cleaner shipping must ensure energy security, protect workers, and maintain affordable access to goods and transport services.”

A call for cooperation and balance

The IMO’s proposed Net-Zero Framework aims to establish a global system of financial contributions from ship operators to fund decarbonization efforts, including investment in renewable marine fuels and carbon capture technology. Proponents argue that a unified regulatory system would accelerate global climate action while reducing the risk of fragmented regional policies.

Environmental advocates and major container carriers have welcomed the initiative, viewing it as a necessary step to reach the industry’s 2050 net-zero goals. However, several developing countries and oil-exporting economies have expressed apprehension, warning that the proposal could disproportionately affect nations dependent on maritime trade or fossil fuel exports.

In its statement, the U.S. administration echoed similar concerns, noting that “climate solutions should not evolve into an unsanctioned global tax regime that harms developing nations and increases consumer costs.”

Toward sustainable global trade

Despite differing positions on the IMO’s proposal, U.S. officials reaffirmed that Washington remains deeply committed to the long-term goal of sustainable maritime transport. The U.S. is continuing to fund research and partnerships focused on cleaner propulsion systems, hydrogen and ammonia-based fuels, and digital tools that improve fuel efficiency across the sector.

The U.S. has also been an active participant in global maritime sustainability dialogues, collaborating with the European Union, Japan, and Pacific Island nations on low-carbon shipping routes and the development of “green corridors” between major ports.

“America’s leadership in clean energy innovation is driving real progress,” said Secretary Wright. “We believe in a future where environmental responsibility and economic strength go hand in hand.”

Global reactions and path forward

As the IMO prepares for next week’s vote, diplomats and maritime experts stress the importance of maintaining unity among member states. Many see the upcoming discussions as a chance to align environmental ambition with realistic implementation strategies.

“While there are legitimate differences in approach, the world’s major economies share the same goal: to build a cleaner, more sustainable shipping industry,” said one international maritime analyst. “Constructive engagement, rather than confrontation, will be key.”

Global shipping companies have also expressed optimism that an eventual compromise could emerge. Many firms are already investing in new vessel technologies and renewable fuels, anticipating stricter emissions rules in the years ahead.

Ultimately, the debate reflects a broader global challenge — balancing the urgent need to combat climate change with the equally vital goal of maintaining stable, inclusive economic growth. As the United States and its international partners navigate these discussions, experts agree that cooperative solutions remain the most promising path forward.