Skip to content
Briefings are running a touch slower this week while we rebuild the foundations.See roadmap
Russia-Ukraine War 2026
13MAY

US lets Iranian oil fund Iran's war

4 min read
20:00UTC

The US is at war with Iran and deliberately allowing Iranian tankers through the strait it describes as a kill box — because blocking them would break the oil market.

ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

Washington has an implicit oil price ceiling that overrides maximum economic pressure on Iran.

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 said 1.

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 war 2. 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.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

The US is at war with Iran — conducting air strikes and military operations — but the US Treasury Secretary admitted on live television that American forces are letting Iranian oil tankers sail through the Strait of Hormuz freely. The reason is economic: Iran produces roughly 1.5 million barrels of oil per day. If the US stopped all of that oil reaching world markets on top of the 60% Gulf supply reduction already caused by the war, oil prices would likely surge well beyond $106, potentially triggering a global recession. So Washington has made a calculated trade-off: allow Iran to keep funding its own war effort in exchange for preventing an oil price spiral damaging to American consumers and allied economies. The problem is that this trade-off has now been said out loud on television — which weakens America's ability to credibly threaten Iran with economic isolation in this conflict or any future one.

Deep Analysis
Synthesis

Bessent's statement is the first explicit official acknowledgement that US economic warfare against Iran is partial by design, not merely by enforcement failure. This fundamentally degrades the credibility of the US sanctions regime. Any state observing this conflict will understand that US financial sanctions carry an implicit market-stability escape valve — a conclusion that weakens deterrence in future confrontations with any oil-producing adversary.

Root Causes

The US Strategic Petroleum Reserve holds approximately 350–400 million barrels — insufficient to offset a full Iranian export cutoff of approximately 1.5–2 million barrels per day for more than six to nine months without exhausting emergency reserves. No allied producer holds spare capacity capable of simultaneously replacing both Gulf disruption and Iranian exports. Washington has therefore calculated that enforcing full economic warfare on Iran is financially impossible without triggering a domestic energy crisis it cannot absorb politically.

Escalation

The primary escalation risk is domestic political rather than military. If the US Congress or influential media frame Bessent's admission as 'funding the enemy', the administration may face irresistible pressure to reverse course and stop Iranian exports. A forced policy reversal would immediately remove the only material buffer currently softening global oil prices — producing an acute price spike that itself carries geopolitical escalation potential across energy-importing economies.

What could happen next?
  • Meaning

    The US has an implicit oil price ceiling above which it modifies its own war aims and enforcement posture.

    Immediate · Assessed
  • Consequence

    Iran retains significant oil revenue to fund its defence despite sustained US kinetic strikes on Iranian territory.

    Short term · Assessed
  • Risk

    Congressional backlash framing Iranian oil tolerance as 'funding the enemy' could force a policy reversal and trigger an acute oil price spike.

    Short term · Suggested
  • Precedent

    US economic warfare against oil-producing adversaries now has a documented market-stability override, weakening future sanctions deterrence credibility.

    Long term · Assessed
First Reported In

Update #38 · Israel enters Lebanon; Hormuz pact fails

CNBC Bessent· 17 Mar 2026
Read original
Causes and effects
Different Perspectives
NATO eastern flank (B9 + Nordics)
NATO eastern flank (B9 + Nordics)
The B9+Nordic Bucharest joint statement on 13 May reaffirmed Ukraine's sovereignty within internationally recognised borders and backed NATO eastern flank reinforcement; the summit accepted Zelenskyy's bilateral drone deal proposal as a structural alternative to the stalled US export approval pathway, treating it as a European defence architecture question rather than aid delivery.
IAEA / Rafael Grossi
IAEA / Rafael Grossi
Grossi is still negotiating a sixth ZNPP repair ceasefire with no agreement after 50 days of 750 kV line disconnection; the 3 May ERCL drone strike that destroyed environmental monitoring equipment represents a qualitative escalation in infrastructure degradation that the IAEA has documented but cannot compel either party to halt.
Péter Magyar / Hungary
Péter Magyar / Hungary
Magyar's incoming foreign minister pledged on 12 May that Hungary will stop abusing EU veto rights; the pledge is a statement of intent rather than a binding legal commitment, and Magyar's MEPs voted against the €90 billion loan as recently as April, while a planned referendum on Ukraine's EU accession preserves a downstream blocking lever.
EU Council and European Commission
EU Council and European Commission
The Magyar cabinet formation on 12 May removes the Hungary veto that had blocked the €9.1 billion first tranche since February; the Commission is now coordinating the three-document disbursement package for an early-June vote. The structural blocker is gone; the disbursement question is now scheduling, not politics.
Donald Trump / White House
Donald Trump / White House
Trump announced a 9-11 May three-day ceasefire with a 1,000-for-1,000 prisoner exchange attached, then called peace 'getting very close' on 11-13 May while Russia's 800-drone barrage was under way; his public framing adopted Russian diplomatic language without securing any Russian operational concession or verifying the exchange was agreed.
Vladimir Putin / Kremlin
Vladimir Putin / Kremlin
Putin told reporters on 9 May the war is 'coming to an end' while Peskov confirmed on 13 May that territorial demands are unchanged and Russia requires full Ukrainian withdrawal from all four annexed regions; the verbal accommodation costs Moscow nothing and conditions any summit on a pre-finalised treaty Kyiv cannot accept.