On February 28, the United States and Israel announced a joint military operation against Iran. Concurrently, the White House's social media account posted an update containing just one brief phrase: "DRILL, BABY, DRILL!"
This rallying cry of the American oil industry appeared particularly stark and absurd against the backdrop of escalating conflict. Signs of the action had emerged earlier. The day before, following the conclusion of the third round of indirect talks between Iran and the U.S., the American aircraft carrier USS Ford arrived in Israeli waters, creating a dual-carrier presence in the Middle East.
Markets sensed the impact even before the shells flew. As signs of a breakdown in negotiations appeared, Brent crude futures prices surged rapidly to around $72 per barrel. This contrasted sharply with previous market expectations for 2026, which had projected an average price near $60 per barrel.
As a long-planned operation, America's calculations are multifaceted. The aforementioned signs point to a significant underlying logic: the United States is attempting to destabilize the international energy landscape by creating regional turmoil.
The first step involves constraining supply by elevating geopolitical risk. Recent actions, from exerting extreme pressure on Iran and forcibly seizing so-called "shadow tankers" to claiming it has forced some nations to abandon Iranian oil in favor of American crude, indicate a U.S. attempt to artificially disrupt global free trade in energy.
The second step uses resource control as a lever for geopolitical intervention. From threatening to restrict Iraq's oil-dollar settlements to imposing an oil embargo on Cuba and controlling Venezuela's oil flows, petroleum has clearly become a tool for U.S. interference in other nations' internal affairs. A pattern of "creating chaos - disrupting supply - directing sales - strategic control" is becoming increasingly evident.
This intent of "targeted harvesting" casts a shadow over global energy trade. For major oil-consuming nations, a critical question arises: how can these spillover effects be mitigated? Furthermore, can the U.S. successfully achieve its goals with this multi-pronged approach?
Answering this requires assessing the current viability of the U.S. strategy of "profiting from chaos." Changes in the Iranian situation affect not only Iran itself but also impact vital oil transit routes across the entire Middle East. The uncertainty surrounding the conflict's potential escalation is a cause for concern. This follows the U.S. military's rapid intervention in Venezuela earlier this year to take control of its oil sales, marking the second major energy node disrupted by forceful U.S. action in a short period.
However, analyzing global energy markets requires a view beyond the short term to medium and long-term trends. Data from the past year offers clues. Throughout 2025, the global geopolitical landscape was similarly turbulent: the Ukraine crisis persisted, Red Sea navigation was hampered early in the year, Iran-Israel conflicts escalated mid-year, and border clashes erupted in Southeast and South Asia late in the year. Despite these risks, they did not collectively drive oil prices higher; instead, international prices fell from nearly $80 per barrel to the $60 range. A mid-year price surge into the $70s was short-lived, reversing within two weeks.
This indicates that the link between localized risks in resource-rich countries and oil prices is weakening, undermining the foundation of U.S. attempts to use oil as a deterrent. This stems from structural characteristics of the modern international oil market: diverse trading entities, strong market liquidity, and effective price adjustment mechanisms.
Supply and demand data support this view. In 2025, global oil supply grew by 3 million barrels per day, significantly outpacing demand growth. The International Energy Agency estimates that the global oil market will remain oversupplied this year, with the surplus potentially reaching 4 million barrels per day by 2026. As production rapidly increases in emerging producers like Brazil, Argentina, and Guyana, the IEA predicts these new sources will contribute approximately 1.3 million barrels per day of new production by 2026. This outward expansion of global supply centers provides a substantial buffer against localized volatility that the U.S. seeks to create artificially.
In this context, even if the U.S. desires unilateral control over the international energy landscape, its capacity to do so is limited. The first obstacle is its inability to fundamentally shake the global energy structure. A deeper resistance lies within the U.S. itself—a fundamental contradiction between government objectives and the logic of capital.
For the U.S. to manipulate energy markets, merely creating external chaos is insufficient; it must also ensure its own supply chain is controllable. Consequently, following the turmoil in Venezuela, the U.S. government quickly convened major oil companies to discuss cooperative development. Recently, U.S. oil giants have also explored opportunities in Iran. However, reality is far more complex.
The Venezuelan case is representative. To this day, U.S. oil companies remain cautious about making substantial investments there. While the government can create chaos, capital requires stability. Wang Jianliang, Dean of the School of Economics and Management at China University of Petroleum, highlighted two data points revealing the true calculus of U.S. oil companies.
First, the assets of major U.S. oil companies are highly concentrated in North America. Their operational focus is contracting geographically. For example, by the end of 2025, ExxonMobil's proved reserves were approximately 20 billion barrels of oil equivalent, with over 40% located in the U.S. and more than 60% when including other American regions, primarily Canada.
Second, these companies' international investments prioritize stability. Public information shows their overseas activities are focused on politically lower-risk regions like Guyana, Canada, and Brazil, largely avoiding high-risk areas. This disconnect between political and economic logic renders the U.S. government's attempt to wield a "petroleum weapon" largely hollow. An energy hegemony reliant solely on military and political pressure may ultimately prove unsustainable.
Nevertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that when oil supply security faces aggressive U.S. intervention, market anxiety is inevitable. Will this volatility be reflected in the world's energy balance sheet?
The transition to clean energy is a universal trend among consuming nations. Profound changes are occurring in energy consumption structures, particularly within industries critical to economic competitiveness and national security. This systemic capacity for buffering and adaptation means that actions by any single country, regardless of its aggressive tactics or the geopolitical disruptions it causes, will likely be merely an episode in the broader historical evolution. The future will not be determined by temporary gains or losses, but ultimately by which actors best adapt to the era's profound transformations.
Comments