dChan
Anonymous ID: 7d9494 July 24, 2026, 3:37 p.m. No.24864133   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4350 >>4655

Marine Insurers May Ban Payments to Iran for Hormuz Transits

Published Jul 23, 2026 11:36 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

Getting insured for a Strait of Hormuz transit is getting more expensive, and there are more strings attached to staying insured as well. Underwriters at Lloyd's Market Association have come up with an additional, optional clause that can be inserted into policies for passages through the waterway; it allows the insurer to cancel the policy if it turns out that the shipowner has paid a toll to Iran. Meant to protect the insurer from compliance risks, in future it could prevent neutral shipowners from using the route through Iranian waters, where Iran does not attack shipping.

 

For the insurer, the hazard is clear. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy oversees Iran's section of the strait, and the IRGC is a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization. The administrative transactions for passage are handled through Iran's so-called Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA), not itself part of the IRGC but still a division of Iran's government.

 

Iran is not currently charging for transits of the strait, but its leaders have expressed a clear interest in turning the waterway's operations into a revenue stream in the long term. As tolling is questionably legal in an international strait, the charges could be presented as a "fee" structure, linked to some form of services rendered for safe transits. At least one prominent shipowner has suggested that it would be a good business decision to accept Iranian control and simply pay the fee as a cost of operations.

 

Payments to the PGSA might be rendered in bitcoin or yuan to keep a low profile, but the funds would ultimately end in the hands of the Iranian banking system and government - and quite possibly the IRGC. Any payment would be a U.S. sanctions violation, and might have other compliance ramifications as well.

 

For an insurer, this would be a reputational and legal risk. A spokesperson for the LMA told Insurance Business that the new tolling clause sets out "a clear contractual position for insurers and insureds" on the acceptability of such payments. If they are discovered, the ship's cover would be canceled.

 

"The LMA has developed the clause in response to concerns about applicable sanctions and terrorism legislation arising where insurers become aware, or through appropriate due diligence ought reasonably to become aware, that any financial or non-financial payment has been given by the insured," the association said in a statement. ""Under the clause, insurers will not cover any such payment. In addition, where a payment has been made, cover for the relevant vessel will cease due to the risk of a breach of sanctions and/or terrorism legislation in the US, UK or EU."

 

Meanwhile, costs of cover are escalating. Reuters reports war risk premiums for Gulf coverage at 3 percent of hull value in early July, and after more recent attacks, some sources indicated that pricing would likely be quoted at 5 percent or more. Prices in this range are a deterrent for trade, as they raise the cost of shipping and can effectively price some commodity trades out of the market.

 

Per Insurance Business, in the southern sector of the Red Sea - where Houthi rebels have initiated a campaign against Saudi shipping - premiums have risen to 1 percent of hull value. This is north of $1 million per transit for a newer VLCC.

 

More:

https://maritime-executive.com/article/marine-insurers-may-ban-payments-to-iran-for-hormuz-transits

Anonymous ID: 7d9494 July 24, 2026, 4:14 p.m. No.24864255   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4271 >>4375

>>24864242

The OEM doors went boom, the Soviets let them rebuild with wood

Again you fail

 

As the government and military began to collapse within Germany, Nazi officials in both Germany and occupied Poland began to think about their endgame. In November 1944, Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS and one of the architects of the Holocaust, issued an abrupt order to destroy the gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau, the largest of Auschwitz’s three main camps. Historians disagree on why he issued the command, which was in direct opposition to a previous order by Adolf Hitler to destroy the remaining Jews in Europe.

 

Officials at the camp obeyed Himmler. In late 1944, they dismantled part of the gas chambers, forcing, eyewitnesses would later recall, the Sonderkommando—a group of mostly Jewish prisoners who were made to run the gas chambers—to dismantle the structures piece by piece. Then, as the Russians closed in that January, the remaining buildings were destroyed, blown up completely using dynamite. However, the ruins remained.

 

https://www.history.com/news/how-the-nazis-tried-to-cover-up-their-crimes-at-auschwitz