The Trump administration’s rhetoric about the war in Iran tends to be heavy on words like “murder” and “destruction,” so it was noted that the president appeared close to apologizing on Wednesday, when discussing Israel’s strike on Iran’s South Pars gas field, which prompted Iranian retaliation against natural gas facilities in Qatar and sent. Global energy prices rise.
“The United States knew nothing about this attack, and the country of Qatar was not involved in any way, shape, or form, nor did it have any idea that it was going to happen,” President Donald Trump. he wrote on Truth Social. (Israeli officials say The United States was informed ahead of time.) He added that “NO FURTHER ATTACKS WILL BE MADE BY ISRAEL regarding this very important and valuable South Pars Field” unless Iran launches further attacks against Qatar.
Trump’s reluctance to engage in an energy war with Iran makes sense: it is an escalation that is guaranteed to increase the economic costs of this war.
The need to keep the world’s oil flows moving has already led to some drastic measures. Last week, the administration for a while removed the restrictions meant to restrict countries like India from buying oil from Russia, and stopping the US strategy to pressure the Kremlin into a peace agreement in Ukraine.
Now, the US is considering not ratifying it Iranian oil that is already in water, or as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent filed it in an interview with Fox Business, “In fact, we will be using Iranian barrels against the Iranians to keep prices down for the next 10 or 14 days, as we continue this campaign.”
On paper, it seems strange for the United States to take steps to make it easier for a country it is currently at war with to export oil, especially since the biggest customer of Iran’s oil is China, another rival of the United States. But it speaks to the mysterious role of oil in modern warfare, where countries sometimes want their adversaries to continue selling energy.
Energy deals are breaking down
One would think that when fighting an enemy, such as Iran, which depends on energy exports as the lifeblood of its economy and the main source of funding for its armed forces, that those resources would be first thing attacked. In practice, economic stability and the desire to keep the lights on and avoid voter conflicts often take precedence over military advantage.
The war in the Middle East, and Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, has undoubtedly affected the global energy market, and there have been previous strikes. against fuel equipment. But until now there seemed to be an unspoken consensus against major attacks on energy infrastructure in Iran or the Gulf.
“It’s normal, when a war happens, to have different escalations, and some things that start as obstacles,” said Rosemary Kelanic, a Defense Priorities analyst and defense expert. the geopolitics of oil. Until now, Kelanic says, “it was a good balance. We didn’t hit these Iranian energy sites, and then they didn’t reach many more energy sites in the Gulf states.”
In recent days, however, that agreement appears to be breaking down. Iran’s attack on Qatar removed 17 percent of the emirate natural gas production capacity, causing an estimated 20 billion dollars in lost revenue and disrupting supply to Europe and Asia. Natural gas is extracted from fewer places in the world than oil and the technical process is more complex, meaning that costs can be higher than attacks on oil stations. On Friday, Iran followed by an attack on an oil refinery in Kuwait.
If the deal is broken, that’s politically bad news for the US government already concerns about the impact of rising oil and gas prices. But it is not the first war where they have faced this problem.
The Trump administration’s desire to limit oil in this war in some ways mirrors the Biden administration’s approach to Ukraine. In 2024, the Financial Times reported that The White House had urged Ukraine to refrain from long-range strikes against Russia’s energy infrastructure for fear that it would raise global energy prices and trigger energy retaliation by Russia.
When the war broke out, the United States had considered sanctions to disrupt the export of marine oil to Russia, but held back after estimates suggested that this could raise oil prices to more than $200 a barrel. Instead, American and European officials devised a complex “price limit”. forcing Russia to sell its oil at a discount. This could, as one Treasury official put it, “reduce the Kremlin’s profits while maintaining a stable energy market.”
The most extreme example of setting oil limits would be Ukraine continued to maintain and repair the pipeline network on its soil it was used to transport Russian oil and natural gas to Europe, even while the war was going on. The concern was that cutting these facilities completely would alienate the European partners on whom Ukraine relied for economic and military support and damage the country’s prospects for EU membership. Gas transportation was eventually shut down there at the beginning of 2025but Ukraine is currently at the bottom pressure from European countries to repair the pipeline used to carry Russian oil.
Although there is evidence that a pro-Ukraine group destroyed the controversial Nord Stream pipeline carrying Russian gas to Europe under the Baltic Sea, the Ukrainian government he repeatedly denied involvementperhaps due to the sensitivity of the target among its partners.
Destroy Iran’s oil, or take it?
There may be another reason why Trump is reluctant to destroy Iran’s oil industry: he would rather take it. The president has been talking about seizing Iran’s oil fields ever since first considering running for office in the 1980s. During this conflict, He has said that it is too early to talk about seizing Iran’s oil industry but it has not ruled it out, and has linked the operation to recent US intervention in Venezuela, where a more modest leader is now willing to give US companies a role in the country’s troubled oil sector.
Trump’s desire to keep Iran’s oil industry intact, whether he has a future role in managing it or simply preventing further price increases, could put him at odds with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“Bibi wants to destroy Iran’s economy and destroy its energy infrastructure. Trump wants to fix it.” an American official he told the Washington Post this week.
But it seems unlikely that Trump will be able to fight a war where the energy goals of both sides of the Gulf are kept out of bounds.
