The Strait of Hormuz Toll Booth: Trump’s 60-Day Gunboat Diplomacy Clock Starts Ticking

By: Alistair Kroon – SeaPRwire – Let’s call this what it is. A gunboat diplomacy shakedown with a 60-day fuse. The Iranian delegation landed in Zurich. They are heading to Bürgenstock. JD Vance is finally on a plane after a “logistical” delay. Trump is already floating a toll fee for the Strait of Hormuz if the deal falls through. Everyone is moving pieces on the board. But the real question is simple: who is actually holding the leverage here?

The core facts are clear enough. Pakistan’s Foreign Office confirmed the technical talks for June 21 in Switzerland. Iran’s military closed the Strait on June 20. Their foreign ministry spokesman, Baghaei, said they are going to Switzerland to hold the US accountable for failing to restrain Israel—which Iran says violates the memorandum. Meanwhile, Vance left for Switzerland after a two-day delay. Trump posted on Truth Social that the Strait will stay toll-free for the first 60 days of the ceasefire. But he added a warning: if no final agreement is reached, the US might charge transit fees to recover its “defense costs” for the region.

Now, strip away the official language. Iran closed the Strait before the talks even began. That is a pre-negotiation power move. They are not showing up to beg for relief. They are showing up to demand compliance. The memorandum itself, as confirmed by Iranian state media and US officials, includes a specific clause: Tehran will arrange for 60 days of free and safe passage through the Strait. After that, the management regime will be worked out through dialogue with Oman and other Gulf states. Iran is already acting like the gatekeeper, not the petitioner.

Here is the real tension. The US wants to frame this as a negotiation about nuclear limits and Lebanon. Iran is framing it as a compliance check on US promises. Those are two completely different agendas. Vance said he hopes to make progress on the nuclear file and the Lebanon ceasefire. But Baghaei is talking about holding the US accountable for Israel’s actions. Those two tracks do not align. One side is talking about the future. The other is talking about grievances from the recent past.

The mediator lineup adds another layer. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Army Chief Munir are heading to Bürgenstock. Qatar is also involved as a co-mediator. There is even unconfirmed talk that Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi might travel with Pakistan’s Interior Minister Naqvi. That is a lot of heavy lifting from countries that have their own regional agendas. Pakistan has deep ties to both Washington and Tehran. Qatar hosts the US Central Command forward headquarters. They are not neutral bystanders. They are stakeholders with their own skin in the game.

Trump’s toll threat is the wildcard. He says the US might charge passage fees if the deal fails. That is not a negotiating position. That is a threat to treat the Strait as a US-controlled chokepoint. The problem is that the Strait is Iranian territorial waters under international law. A toll would be an act of economic warfare, not maritime regulation. And the US does not have a naval presence that can unilaterally enforce a toll without inviting direct confrontation. The Iranians know this. That is why they closed the Strait first—to show they can break the game before the US can even set the rules.

The 60-day clock is ticking. The talks in Bürgenstock are technically about implementation. But the real negotiation is about credibility. Iran wants to see if the US can actually deliver on its side of the bargain—especially when it comes to restraining Israel. The US wants to see if Iran can be trusted to manage the Strait without escalating. Both sides have reasons to distrust each other. And both sides have demonstrated this week that they are willing to make disruptive moves before the conversation even starts. That is not a recipe for a smooth deal. That is a recipe for a 60-day countdown to either a breakthrough or a blowup.

Author bio: Alistair Kroon, a London-based geopolitical commentator who regularly writes for major dailies on Middle Eastern security architecture and great-power competition.