By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The United States is permitting Iranian oil tankers to transit the Strait of Hormuz as part of an effort to ensure global oil supply, according to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. This decision comes amid heightened tensions and attacks on commercial shipping by Iran in the Persian Gulf, which have significantly disrupted tanker traffic through this vital trade route. The administration anticipates an increase in tanker traffic before allied forces begin escorting commercial vessels, with some tankers destined for India and potentially China already transiting. Bessent expressed confidence that oil prices will decrease significantly after the conflict concludes, with the world being better supplied.
Read the original article here
The notion that the U.S. is actively permitting Iranian tankers to transit the Strait of Hormuz, as suggested by comments attributed to Bessent, presents a deeply perplexing paradox, one that seems to underscore a significant departure from traditional geopolitical strategies. It implies a scenario where the United States, typically a dominant force in ensuring maritime security, is essentially stepping aside, allowing Iranian oil exports to continue unimpeded through a critical global chokepoint. This development, if true, signals a profound shift, suggesting that direct intervention or any attempt to halt these shipments could prove counterproductive, potentially escalating tensions and leading to even more severe economic repercussions.
The underlying logic of such a policy, as understood from these observations, appears to be rooted in a pragmatic, albeit alarming, assessment of the potential consequences. Attacking or intercepting Iranian tankers would likely provoke retaliatory actions from Iran, potentially targeting other vessels in the region. This would invariably lead to a sharp increase in global oil prices, as the reliable flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz would be severely jeopardized, if not entirely halted. This outcome would not only disrupt global markets but also exacerbate existing economic instabilities, making the situation considerably worse for everyone involved.
The announcement of such a policy, particularly if timed near market openings, could be interpreted as a sign of desperation or panic within the administration. The fact that the Treasury Secretary is reportedly involved in such pronouncements, rather than the Department of Defense, further fuels this confusion. It raises questions about who is truly formulating and executing these critical foreign policy and military strategies. The comparison of escorting Iranian tankers to paying the Taliban to protect their convoys in Afghanistan is stark, suggesting a perception that Iran is effectively dictating terms, rather than being subject to U.S. influence or control.
Historically, the Strait of Hormuz and the potential for its closure by Iran have been a perennial concern, a textbook case study in geopolitical and economic risk. It’s a scenario that has been analyzed and modeled extensively in academic and strategic circles for decades. Therefore, the suggestion that the U.S. administration might be caught off guard by the implications of Iran controlling this vital waterway seems astonishingly ill-prepared. One would expect that any contingency planning by the Pentagon would have thoroughly addressed the possibility of Iran attempting to close or control the strait, with detailed roadmaps for mitigating the resulting energy shock and its cascading economic and political fallout.
The concept of “Free on Board” (FOB) contracts, where ownership of the oil transfers to the buyer upon loading, adds another layer of complexity. If the U.S. were to intercept tankers carrying oil destined for other nations under such agreements, it could be perceived not just as an act of aggression against Iran, but as an infringement on the economic interests of those purchasing nations, potentially leading to wider international condemnation or even conflict. The immediate rise in oil prices following initial provocations, and the expectation of a corresponding drop with this new policy, highlights the direct link between perceived supply security and market fluctuations.
The core of this strategy, as understood, seems to hinge on the idea that as long as Iran can still export oil, it has a vested interest in preventing a complete shutdown of the Strait. Intercepting or destroying Iranian oil infrastructure would remove this incentive, potentially leading to a more drastic response from Iran, such as attempting to mine the strait, which would have catastrophic consequences for global oil supplies. Therefore, allowing some level of oil export, even from Iran, might be seen as a less damaging, albeit deeply unsatisfying, path to maintaining a degree of stability in the global oil market.
The implications for international relations are significant. If the U.S. were to actively prevent Iran from delivering oil to countries like India, it would not only alienate those nations but also contribute to price hikes for consumers worldwide. While such a scenario might benefit some oil-producing nations, like Russia, and domestic oil companies, it would be detrimental to the broader global economy and the average citizen. The lack of clear consensus on the optimal course of action, even among those making the decisions, suggests an unprecedented level of uncertainty and perhaps a failure to anticipate the full ramifications of escalating tensions.
The idea that the U.S. is “allowing” Iranian ships through is met with significant skepticism, often framed as a tacit acknowledgment that the U.S. lacks the power to unilaterally control navigation in the Strait without severe repercussions. This perspective suggests that the U.S. is not in a position of unquestioned command but rather navigating a complex and volatile situation where its actions are constrained by the potential for escalation. The comparison to France allowing U.S. tankers through the Gulf of Mexico highlights the perceived absurdity of the situation, implying that Iran is the one exercising control, not the U.S.
The strategic question of why the U.S. would maintain a presence or occupy territory like Kharg Island if Iran’s oil export industry is simply allowed to continue unabated is a valid one. It calls into question the purpose and effectiveness of military deployments if the primary economic lever of the adversary remains untouched. Furthermore, the involvement of the Treasury Secretary in discussing military strategies raises concerns about a lack of coordinated decision-making and a potential for conflicting priorities. The financial gains Iran might be making through continued oil exports under this perceived U.S. acquiescence are also a point of contention.
The framing of this situation as a strategic victory for Iran, where it is perceived as “fucking the shit out of the U.S.,” underscores a sentiment of U.S. vulnerability and Iran’s apparent ability to dictate terms. The image of America, once a superpower, appearing diminished and struggling to maintain its influence is a recurring theme. This perception of weakness and a lack of a clear, effective strategy leads to questions about the efficacy of the current approach and whether it truly represents a “win.”
Ultimately, the narrative suggests a complex and highly unpredictable geopolitical environment. The reported policy of allowing Iranian tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, as conveyed by Bessent, is viewed by many as a sign of weakness, a desperate attempt to manage a crisis rather than a proactive strategy for achieving U.S. objectives. The confusion and frustration stem from a perceived inability to control events, a departure from historical norms, and the potential for unintended consequences that could further destabilize an already volatile region. The question remains: who is truly in charge, and what does this evolving situation portend for the future of global energy security and international relations?