NEW EASTERN OUTLOOK 🌐 (@NEO_Journal)

💸🛢🗺Protecting Oil, Producing Instability: Washington's Failed Energy Strategy in the Middle East ➿➿➿➿➿➿➿➿➿➿ For decades, Washington has justified its military presence in the Middle East as necessary to protect global energy security. American naval forces would safeguard shipping, military partnerships would deter attacks on oil-producing states, and sanctions would restrain governments regarded as threats. The promise was simple: American power would keep energy flowing and markets stable. The outcome increasingly contradicts that promise. ✏️Dr. Kamran Yeganegi is an Assistant Professor at Islamic Azad University, a Senior Researcher at the Center for Middle East Strategic Studies, and Senior Advisor to the President of Chabahar International University. ➡️The region has become more militarised, energy infrastructure more exposed, and shipping more hazardous. According to the IEA, nearly 15 million barrels of crude oil passed through the Strait of Hormuz each day in 2025—approximately 34 percent of global crude oil trade. Including petroleum products, total flows reached around 20 million barrels per day. The Strait also carried more than 20 percent of global LNG trade. This concentration was already a structural vulnerability. Washington's combination of military pressure and economic isolation has helped transform it into an arena of coercion. The paradox is evident: the greater the pressure placed on Iran, the stronger Tehran's incentive to demonstrate that global energy security cannot be separated from its own national security. The paradox is evident: the greater the pressure placed on Iran, the stronger Tehran's incentive to demonstrate that global energy security cannot be separated from its own national security. ➡️A central assumption is that escalation can be calibrated—sanctions tightened, military forces deployed, limited attacks conducted while the wider energy system continues operating. This is the illusion of controlled escalation. Energy markets react not only to physical shortages but also to expectations, shipping delays, insurance risks, and uncertainty about future supply. Recent disruption prompted the IEA to coordinate its largest-ever release of emergency oil stocks—exposing a contradiction: emergency reserves are being used to manage a supply crisis intensified by the militarised order Washington presents as indispensable. Sanctions create another contradiction. Repeated use encourages targeted states to seek alternative arrangements for trade, payment, insurance, and transportation. Iran's energy sector has paid a substantial price, but economic pain does not automatically produce the political concessions Washington expects. 🟦The costs are unevenly distributed. The US is a major energy producer and geographically distant from the principal zones of confrontation. Many European and Asian partners are more dependent on imported energy and vulnerable maritime routes. The IEA reports most crude oil passing through Hormuz was destined for Asian markets—China and India together receiving 44 percent of these exports. When confrontation raises prices, importing economies face higher production costs. Washington may intensify pressure, but much of the resulting burden is transferred to partners with limited influence. A durable alternative should be regionally owned but internationally supported—recognizing oil and gas installations, pipelines, ports, and shipping routes as shared strategic interests. BRICS and the SCO could provide diplomatic space for dialogue. Washington now faces a choice: continue equating energy security with military predominance and sanctions, or accept that no state can monopolise security in a region whose energy networks serve the entire world. #EnergySecurity #MiddleEast #USForeignPolicy #StraitOfHormuz #Sanctions #Geopolitics READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook