In May 2018, Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly referred to as the Iran Nuclear Deal. His decision to pull back was framed as a repudiation of a flawed nuclear agreement. The true impact of this move was not merely diplomatic, but structural. Within weeks, oil contracts collapsed, insurers withdrew coverage, banks froze transactions, and European energy firms suspended investments in Iran. Without the need for physical intervention, Iran’s oil exports sharply declined.
When France’s TotalEnergies abandoned its multibillion-dollar stake in the South Pars gas field, it was not Tehran’s sovereignty that determined the outcome, but Washington’s command over the financial and legal frameworks governing global energy trade. In the twenty-first century, primacy is exercised less through territorial possession than through the ability to grant—or deny—systemic permission: who may extract, insure, finance and ship the world’s oil. The ongoing US-Israel military confrontation with Iran unfolds within that quiet energy war.
This architecture of global energy trade was visible in early 2026, when oil markets reacted sharply to rising tensions in the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian gunboats approached a U.S.-flagged tanker, prompting a U.S. naval escort and raising risk perceptions among insurers and traders. War-risk premiums widened, and futures prices climbed as markets priced in the possibility of disruption. A similar dynamic appeared during the 2024 Red Sea crisis, when Houthi attacks forced shipping companies to reroute vessels away from the Suez Canal. Markets did not wait for missiles to land, but on the mere possibility that access to vital arteries could be restricted.
In today’s world, the decisive battlefield is not always the desert or the sea. Power manifests in ledgers and compliance systems: insurance certificates, settlement currencies, and clearing houses. The less visible contest between the United States and Iran is therefore not only about nuclear centrifuges or ideological rivalry, but about who governs the systems through which energy is traded. Behind the façade of conventional conflict lies a deeper geoeconomic struggle over Iran’s vast oil reserves and the strategic chokepoint of the Strait of Hormuz. A regime change and the installation of a US puppet will facilitate a transition of power from Tehran to Washington.
To grasp its significance, one must look beyond Tehran to the infrastructure of global energy exchange. Oil moves through shipping lanes, underwriting syndicates, derivatives markets, and correspondent banking networks. Whoever shapes those circuits exercises influence far beyond any single oil field. The power lies not only in who owns the wells, but in who governs the routes, the contracts and the currency in which oil prices are denominated.
Consider China. As the world’s largest oil importer, it relies on foreign supply for roughly seventy per cent of its crude consumption, much of it originating from the Persian Gulf. A substantial share transits the Strait of Hormuz before passing through the Strait of Malacca—maritime chokepoints secured by an enduring American naval presence. Through Hormuz alone flows about one-fifth of globally traded petroleum. This vulnerability is both geographic and financial.
Beijing’s response has been methodical. It has built one of the world’s largest strategic petroleum reserve systems and has secured long-term supply contracts with Gulf producers. It has invested in pipelines through Kazakhstanand Russia to reduce partial reliance on maritime corridors. Through the Belt and Road Initiative, it has financed ports and logistics hubs from Gwadar in Pakistan to Djibouti in Ethiopia. It has expanded yuan-denominated settlement mechanisms through currency swap arrangements with central banks to reduce exposure to dollar-clearing networks.
Diversification can buy time. It does not confer control. Tankers still require maritime insurance, largely underwritten in Western markets. Pricing benchmarks such as Brent and West Texas Intermediate remain anchored in London and New York. Energy derivatives markets are embedded in Western financial centres. Dollar liquidity remains the bloodstream of global energy trade. Even as more oil flows east, the system that governs how it is traded remains anchored in the West.
India faces a similar challenge. As the world’s third-largest oil importer, its growth depends heavily on crude from the Gulf. Energy fuels its factories, infrastructure projects and expanding cities. When secondary sanctionstightened after 2018, Indian refiners reduced purchases from Iran despite favourable pricing. New Delhi sought temporary waivers, explored rupee-based settlement mechanisms, and diversified its supplier base. Yet strategic autonomy encountered structural limits. Participation in global markets required compliance with financial systems it did not design.
That tension defines India’s position in a multipolar world. New Delhi has strengthened security ties with Washington while preserving flexibility in energy sourcing and currency arrangements. The approach is pragmatic and vital to its energy security. Yet the more global trade runs through dollar-based systems, the narrower the space for countries to operate outside them. This was evident in the recent India–U.S. trade deal, where lifting punitive tariff pressures was contingent on stopping Russian oil imports and engaging in a strategic rebalancing towards costlier dollar-denominated crude in US Shale and heavy Venezuelan crude.
The structural reality of the global energy order is most evident at the Strait of Hormuz. Every escalation between Washington and Tehran reverberates across futures markets, currency exchanges, and insurance syndicates within hours. The premiums rise, and crude prices become volatile. The chokepoint lies within sovereign geography, yet its stability underwrites economic life from Mumbai to Shanghai to Rotterdam. Since military actions began, Brent crude oil prices have risen from $72 per barrel to $84, and with the closure of the strait, analysts fear oil could breach $100 if the conflict escalates further.
History offers perspective. Empires have long understood that supremacy rests less on symbols of power than on control over the flow of resources. Rome secured Egypt to stabilise its grain supply. The British Empire’s power rested not only on colonies but on command of sea lanes, maritime law, and insurance markets in London. Oil now performs the function grain once did, fueling modern economies. Sovereignty over oil fields matters, but sovereignty over circulation—how oil is transported, insured, and financed—matters more.
Iran’s history underscores this continuity. In 1951, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh nationalised the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company to assert sovereign control over it. Two years later, a coup orchestrated by the CIA and MI6overthrew Mossadegh and restored the American ally, the Shah. Though the intervention was cloaked in Cold War overtures, oil remained at its heart. The instruments of power have since evolved. Where earlier eras relied on coups or military interventions, contemporary influence often operates through sanctions regimes, financial exclusion, maritime enforcement, and regulatory authority. The objective remains unchanged: shaping the rules through which energy circulates.
Leaders in resource-rich states have long argued that sovereignty over oil fields does not guarantee control over the systems that finance, insure and transport their output—the geopolitics of oil. Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi both framed Western intervention through this lens—an argument often dismissed in Washington, yet rooted in a deeper anxiety about systemic control.
Nevertheless, the objective—shaping the rules of circulation—remains unchanged. U.S. dominance within this system has encouraged China and Russia to challenge Washington’s influence over global energy trade. After Western sanctions in 2022, Russia redirected much of its oil toward Asian buyers, particularly India and China. The episode underscored a broader lesson: when access to financial networks can be restricted, building alternative mechanisms becomes a strategic imperative.
What distinguishes the present era is the concentration of institutional leverage within the American-led system. Oil trade remains deeply intertwined with dollar-denominated settlement networks. Correspondent banking links commercial banks worldwide to U.S. clearinghouses. Secondary sanctions operate through these nodes, threatening exclusion from dollar markets for entities that transact with sanctioned actors. U.S. sanctions can pressure SWIFT to disconnect banks. When the U.S. withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iranian banks were cut off from SWIFT access under sanctions pressure—crippling Iran’s oil exports. It is a classic case of economic warfare.
Maritime Insurance adds another layer. A substantial share of global tanker coverage is underwritten in London-based markets operating within Western compliance frameworks. Without certification, vessels cannot dock at major ports or access financing. Oil prices, meanwhile, are set in futures markets based in London and New York.
The U.S. shale revolution strengthened that leverage by reducing domestic vulnerability to external supply shocks. That shift gave Washington greater freedom to confront producers like Iran without fearing immediate supply shortages at home. While major Asian importers remain structurally dependent on maritime supply chains, the United States diversified and hedged its risks.
Oil revenues, meanwhile, are often invested back into American financial markets. To cite an example, Gulf sovereign wealth funds hold large stakes in U.S. bonds and equities through a system often described as petrodollar recycling: oil-exporting countries reinvest the U.S. dollars they earn from selling oil back into global financial markets, especially U.S. assets. Because most oil is priced in dollars, countries must hold dollar reserves to purchase it. Major exporters then recycle their earnings by investing heavily in U.S. Department of the Treasury securities, which effectively replaced the Gold Standard with the Treasury Standard. The result is a cycle that sustains demand for the dollar while reinforcing global reliance on financial infrastructure anchored in the United States.
Sanctions are the human cost of this unfettered financial power. These are designed to pressure governments, but oil prices affect ordinary lives. For example, Iranians and Venezuelans have been living for decades under sanctions and trade embargoes, which have buffeted their economies and caused widespread economic distress. When exports collapsed, their currencies weakened, and they were consequently afflicted by inflationary pressures. And at times, civil unrest. Thucydides summarised, rather poignantly, a realist view of international politics: “The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”
History offers a warning. During the 1956 Suez Crisis, Britain discovered that military strength could not compensate for financial weakness. Currency pressure forced a retreat that marked the beginning of the end of its global dominance. The United States today occupies a far stronger position. But maintaining that position requires constant management of alliances, markets and expectations.
The entrenched idea that energy is not simply a commodity, but a system of influence, is central to understanding why America’s interest in Venezuelan and Iranian oil persists, even after the domestic shale boom. While the United States now ranks among the world’s top oil producers, it cannot escape the reality that global oil prices are determined by a market shaped by the vast reserves found in countries like Venezuela and Iran.
The decisions made about when and how sanctioned oil from Venezuela and Iran is allowed to re-enter the market have far-reaching effects. These decisions influence not only the stability of global oil prices but also impact bargaining dynamics within OPEC and the economic viability of American shale production. In this way, the U.S. maintains a stake in the flow of oil from these countries, regardless of its own production levels.
In the modern energy order, power lies not simply in producing oil, but in shaping the conditions under which the world’s largest reserves enter global markets.
The decisive question may not be whether the United States can maintain influence over the world’s energy arteries. The question is whether a system built on conditional access can retain legitimacy in a world increasingly attuned to imbalance. Empires once faltered when their legions overstretched. Modern primacy risks erosion when architecture hardens into hierarchy and hierarchy into grievance.
Resistance will not arrive as invasion but as diversification: new settlement systems, insurance pools, shipping corridors and currency experiments. Power exercised through permission must ultimately reconcile dominance with consent. If it cannot, the quiet energy war will end not in defeat, but in a slow and silent exit of the system itself.
-30-
Copyright©Madras Courier, All Rights Reserved. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from madrascourier.com and redistribute by email, post to the web, mobile phone or social media.Please send in your feed back and comments to [email protected]
