Seoul: Iran is attempting to seek profit from the Strait of Hormuz amid its conflict with the United States and Israel. This is a misguided strategy - one that risks further isolating the country while adding strain to global supply chains. Tehran should reconsider, as the nation stands to lose far more than it could gain from imposing transit fees.

According to Yonhap News Agency, on Tuesday, Iran's parliament approved a plan requiring vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz to pay tolls. From Iran's perspective, the move may appear to be double-edged: generating revenue for a war-strained economy while using control over a critical maritime chokepoint as leverage against its adversaries and their allies.

The measure includes provisions to block ships linked to the United States and Israel, as well as to deny passage to vessels from countries participating in sanctions against Iran. Yet rather than strengthening Iran's position, such actions are more likely to deepen its economic and diplomatic isolation.

First and foremost, Iran's unilateral move runs counter to the principle of freedom of navigation. Under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway linking the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, is an international waterway not subject to the control of any single state.

U.N. Security Council Resolution 2817, adopted on March 11, underscores this point. It states that attempts to restrict passage through the strait violate international law and pose a threat to global security. The resolution directly challenges Iran's claim that it can lawfully impose jurisdiction over the waterway or justify interference with transiting vessels.

Second, imposing tolls on international shipping is likely to backfire diplomatically. Even countries that maintain relatively close ties with Iran have expressed concern. India, for instance, protested the move, citing the principle of free navigation. Reports that some Chinese vessels have paid tolls to ensure safe passage suggest short-term compliance, but it is highly uncertain whether such arrangements would persist. What is clear is that few, if any, nations will willingly accept paying for access to a route that has historically been open to all.

Third, Iran risks provoking a broad international backlash. The Strait of Hormuz handles roughly 20 percent of global crude oil shipments, making it one of the most vital arteries of global trade. For major importers such as Korea, Japan, and China, the stakes are even higher. Korea alone - one of the world's largest oil importers - depends on the strait for the majority of its crude oil and a significant share of its natural gas. Any disruption or added cost would ripple across economies already strained by ongoing conflicts in the Middle East.

Iran is already demanding payments of up to $2 million per vessel for passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Given that 15 to 20 Korea-linked vessels transited the strait each day before the war, the cumulative financial burden would be enormous if Iran proceeds with its plan. More importantly, the move would likely trigger coordinated international efforts to restore unimpeded access to the strait. Such a response would not be limited to Iran's adversaries; even its partners may find common cause in defending freedom of navigation, considering their dependence on the sea lane for crude oil imports.

In this light, Iran's plan is not only unsustainable but also self-defeating. Rather than helping the country recover from the devastation of war, it risks compounding its economic hardship and geopolitical isolation.

There is a Korean saying that Iran would do well to heed: Take your time in moments of crisis. Much like the English proverb "haste makes waste," it carries a sterner warning - that hasty decisions made without careful consideration can lead to irreversible consequences. In times of emergency, restraint and strategic patience are often the wiser course. Iran should follow this advice.