For its first retaliation to the American–Israeli attack of February 28, Iran struck several Arab capitals with ballistic missiles, and Tehran announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz to maritime navigation, leading to a highly predictable spike in oil prices.
When President Donald Trump was asked about rising oil prices at a press conference held following the strike, he replied that it had been nothing more than a "glitch," a computing term for a temporary self-correcting error. The term is misleading; the president used it to downplay the significance of the surge and its repercussions for Americans and for people the world over.
The war currently waged on Iran has re-centered oil four years after the outbreak of the Russian–Ukrainian war. Its return to center stage affirms that it maintains a grip on the global economy; oil climbing past one hundred US dollars a barrel is stark proof.
Shutting the shipping lane through the Strait of Hormuz - be it Iran or any other actor - is a sure way to turn the world against you. Vast volumes of energy resources pass through it: resources needed to light cities, power factories, build homes, and sustain mega-projects. Without it, everything stops.
The spike has brought back memories of the 1970s crisis resulting from oil-exporting nations' embargo. Prices quadrupled within months at the time. It also brings to mind the surge following the eruption of the Ukrainian war four years ago.
Statistics from the International Energy Agency show that 30 percent of the world’s energy depends on oil and that the world now consumes twice the volume of oil it did in the 1970s. Simply put, in the view of experts, we are a long way away from the dream of a "post-oil" era.
Talk of an oil-free world emerging within the foreseeable future, as we often see in the media, is a legitimate abstract aspiration. However, it runs up against the hard realities of geopolitics: great powers continue to redraw their maps of influence around it and the straits through which it is shipped. Oil remains the real engine of history and geography alike.
In Venezuela, access to oil was the prime motivation behind Washington's push to depose President Nicolas Maduro. The administration reached its objective by removing him: access to the largest proven reserves on earth. It then turned to Cuba - not to seize oil, since Cuba produces none - but to weaponize its control over Venezuela politically, cutting Havana off from the free Venezuelan crude it had received from Maduro in return for ensuring his personal security. Oil became a tool for toppling the Cuban regime.
This strategy was also on Trump’s mind in Iran. American fighter and bomber aircraft deliberately steered clear of Iran's oil terminals on Kharg Island, through which nine of every ten barrels Iran produces are exported. Washington's rationale is twofold. It wants to avoid further destabilization of oil markets, and it worries that destroying the facilities could provoke indiscriminate retaliation and widespread chaos. British media have reported that massive tankers continued arriving at the island this very week to load Iranian crude.
The United States and Israel have a clear military strategy for the battlefield. However, they have no strategy for how the means will serve political ends. The opposite is true for Iran; its political strategy is obvious: ensure the survival of the regime, with any means justifying this end.
Western commentators argue that this is not merely an Iranian survival strategy. It is the engine driving all warring parties, Washington above all. Indeed, the US regards oil as its best tool for containing and curtailing China's role in international affairs and the economy.
