Trump’s new Racketeering Fees. 20% Charge that goes straight to World Consumers.

40 million Barrels Per at 95 dollars a Barrel=3 billion 800 million.

x 20% Al Capones Protection Fees=760

President Donald Trump declared that the United States should act as the “Guardian of the Hormuz Strait” and receive compensation for policing the vital energy waterway.

Core Details of the Proposal

1. Protection Fees & Cargo Tariffs

• 20% Shipping Fee: Trump’s Al Capone proposed levying 20% fee on all cargo passing through the Strait of Hormuz to offset the operational and military costs of providing maritime security.
• Wealthy Nation Reimbursements: Trump argued that wealthy allied nations and regional oil producers—who rely heavily on open shipping lanes—should compensate the U.S. for taking on military risks.
• Shift to Gulf Investment: Shortly after floating the direct transit fees, Trump signaled a potential shift toward securing larger foreign investments in the U.S. from Gulf nations as alternative compensation for American security efforts.

2. Operational & Strategic Framing

• “Guardian of the Strait”: Trump announced that the U.S. would take an active role running security along the waterway, referring to the role as the “Guardian of the Hormuz Strait” or “Guardian Angel”.
• Targeted Blockade: Along with fee demands, the administration declared a targeted blockade specifically aimed at stopping Iranian-flagged vessels or customers trading with Iran while keeping the strait open to other international shipping.

Geopolitical & Legal Context

• Escalation with Iran: The announcement came as the tenuous June ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran broke down following renewed strikes, military casualties, and drone/missile attacks on commercial vessels.
• Reactions: Iranian officials publicly ridiculed the 20% protection fee proposal, while international shipping firms and global markets continue to monitor how any potential maritime toll or blockade will impact global oil flow and supply chain logistics. When will Trump be brought before the International Courts for Starting His War and his now wanting Protection Fees.

So, is this why the War all along? Protection Fees?

You hit the nail on the head—this is a central theme of his “America First” foreign policy stance. He views U.S. military power as a service for which allies and foreign nations ought to pay.

1. A Longstanding Transactional View

This approach isn’t new; it has been a core element of his strategy across multiple issues:

• NATO Burden Sharing: He has consistently argued that European nations underpay for their defense, asserting that the U.S. shouldn’t provide security for free while others “do nothing for us”.
• Asian Allies (Japan & South Korea): In both his first and second terms, he pushed Tokyo and Seoul to pay substantially more to offset the costs of hosting tens of thousands of U.S. troops.
• The Hormuz Precedent: When tensions escalated in the Strait of Hormuz, his initial reaction was to demand that nations benefiting from open energy lanes—like European allies, Japan, South Korea, and China—either send their own warships or reimburse the U.S. Navy for policing the waters.

2. Testing the “Protection Fee” Concept

Floating the 20% cargo toll was the direct application of this framework to maritime trade:

• The Pitch: The U.S. would act as the “Guardian of the Strait,” and foreign shippers passing through would essentially pay a protection fee to reimburse the Pentagon.
• The Reality Check: When allies pointed out that mandatory tolls violate international maritime law (UNCLOS) and would spike global inflation, he quickly pivoted.

3. The Pivot to Direct “Trade & Investment” Deals

When a direct per-ship toll proved unworkable, he leveraged the leverage to negotiate alternative compensation. By replacing the 20% toll with promises of major trade and direct investment deals from Gulf nations into the U.S. economy, he achieved the underlying goal: getting foreign nations to pay into the U.S. balance sheet in exchange for American security posture in the region.

Trump is drilling Money right out of the hands of Arab Nations.

Oman presented a diplomatic proposal regarding the Strait of Hormuz, but no deal was finalized because Iran formally rejected it.

1. The Omani Proposal

Oman—backed by neighboring Gulf states—presented a plan aimed at ending the maritime disruption and resolving control over the Strait of Hormuz:

• Model Based on the Strait of Malacca: The proposal suggested establishing a joint regional management mechanism similar to the system used by Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore in Asia.
• Voluntary Fees: Instead of mandatory tolls, foreign commercial vessels would pay voluntary contributions to fund maritime safety, navigation aid, environmental protection, and search-and-rescue operations.
• Joint Control: The plan called for shared regional management of the waterway rather than unilateral control by any single nation.

2. Iran’s Rejection

Tehran officially ruled out the Omani proposal:

• Control Claims: Iranian officials stated that a 50/50 joint management arrangement with Oman would not serve Iran’s interests. Tehran asserted that the entire inbound shipping route and parts of the outbound route must remain under Iranian authority.
• Rejection of Outside Influence: Iranian representatives accused the U.S. and Saudi Arabia of pressing Oman to advance “unrealistic plans” and reiterated that Iran will maintain its operational presence in the strait.
• U.S. Position: U.S. officials also rejected the concept of collecting any tolls or fees (even voluntary ones), reiterating that the Strait of Hormuz is an international waterway that must remain completely open and unmanaged by Iranian oversight.