Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC on Monday that the United States is deliberately allowing Iranian oil tankers through the strait of Hormuz. "The Iranian ships have been getting out already, and we've let that happen to supply the rest of the world," he said1.
The US is spending roughly $1.4 billion per day on military operations against Iran. It has described Hormuz as a "kill box" with pre-registered Iranian fire zones. Every ally it asked to send warships has refused. And through the same waters, Iranian crude continues to flow — the revenue that funds the missiles, drones, and naval mines the US and its partners are absorbing daily.
The logic is economic. Gulf oil exports have dropped at least 60% since February. Brent traded at $106.18 on Monday — up from $67.41 on 27 February. Saudi spare capacity faces daily drone attack. The Shah Gas Field is offline. Fujairah oil loading is suspended. Iran exports roughly 1.3 million barrels per day. Interdicting that flow would tighten a market already producing below demand by the widest margin the IEA has recorded. The administration has calculated that the inflationary cost of blocking Iranian exports exceeds the strategic cost of letting Tehran fund its defence.
Bessent predicted prices would fall "much lower" than $80 after the war2. He named no timeline. Ten days earlier, he told Sky News escorts would begin "as soon as militarily possible" while Energy Secretary Wright said the Navy was "simply not ready" for them. TankerTrackers.com data showed 11.7 million barrels of Iranian oil had already transited to China by 10 March. Washington's non-interdiction policy means that figure is still climbing. The distance between stated war aims — destroying Iran's military capability — and operational reality — permitting the adversary's primary revenue stream — is the war's defining economic contradiction.
