fuel

Russia to supply 300,000 tonnes of diesel immediately, followed by 1.5 million more, as prices soar amid the Iran war.

United States President Donald Trump said that Russia has agreed to supply 300,000 tonnes of diesel fuel to global markets amid discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“I have just concluded a highly successful discussion with President Vladimir Putin, of Russia, wherein it was agreed that Russia will immediately supply over 300,000 Tons of Diesel Fuel to the American and Global Marketplace, another 500,000 Tons during the month of November, and 1,000,000 Tons immediately thereafter,” Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform.

The president added that Russia would deliver an additional 3 million tonnes of fuel “within a short period of time”. He said that the country would supply 500,000 tonnes in November.

An envoy for Russian President Vladimir Putin, Kirill Dmitriev, praised cooperation between Russia and the United States on diesel and energy in a post on X shortly after.

“Russia-US cooperation on diesel and energy will benefit the world,” Dmitriev wrote on X.

Petrol price pressures

The deal comes despite Ukrainian air strikes, which have taken more than half of the country’s oil refining capacity offline, according to claims made by Ukraine’s Ministry of Defence on Sunday.

The latest announcement comes a week after the G7 countries agreed to release 100 million barrels amid pressure from the White House.

The move also comes as prices of diesel, used in agriculture, heating homes and trucking goods, are near record highs ahead of the November 3 congressional elections that will determine control of Congress.

Diesel prices have been elevated in recent months but have started to decline. The average price for a gallon is $6.27 ($1.66 per litre), according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), which tracks daily petrol prices. That’s down $0.10 from this time last week, but up $5.94 from this time one month ago.

Diesel prices, which can drive inflation, are up 70 percent since the US and Israel’s war on Iran began this year, despite two high-profile recent moves by Trump to boost supplies of the fuel: pressuring allies ‌to release emergency reserves and expanding access to tax-exempt red-dyed diesel, which is normally used for farm equipment.

The wars in Iran and Ukraine have triggered an unprecedented global fuel supply crunch.

Winner of the Palme d’Or at this year’s Cannes Film Festival, still among the most prestigious prizes any movie can claim, “Fjord” aims for both a quiet, subtle power and the directness of a sledgehammer. It speaks to the skill of Romanian writer-director Cristian Mungiu, along with the star power and acting prowess of its leads, Sebastian Stan and Renate Reinsve, that the film achieves those goals, creating a mix of feelings including ambivalence, shock and dismay over what people will do to one another in the name of a common good.

Having recently moved from Bucharest to a remote village in Norway, a conservative, devoutly Christian couple and their five young children have begun to insert themselves into the fabric of their new community. Mihai, the Romanian father (Stan), is a little intense and gloomy; Lisbet (Reinsve), a Norwegian, is shy but kind, and their focus seems clearly on what they see as a warm, loving homelife.

But when their children are suddenly taken into protective custody over allegations of abuse, they find their world turned upside down. Eventually, the father asks a prosecutor with equal parts anger and exasperation, “Am I on trial for my beliefs?”

The official answer to that question, more or less, is both no and yes. The government’s position is that the children cannot be placed back into a home where they will be harmed, whether that means physical violence or indoctrination in ideology counter to that of the state’s, such as no dancing, no internet and that being gay is wrong.

Based on actual events involving a Romanian family in Norway in 2015, “Fjord” is purposefully designed to make a viewer — any viewer — question their assumptions and predispositions regarding the relationship between personal liberty and state power. While this may all sound a bit reactionary or like shooting fish in a barrel, Mungiu wisely complicates matters.

The filmmaker, a previous Palme winner for his 2007 abortion drama “4 Weeks, 3 Months and 2 Days,” presumably knows that the majority of the audience for his international art-house domestic drama will be more aligned with the liberal, progressive politics of the Norwegian state than the religious, conservative couple at the story’s center. So most audiences will automatically be put into the purposefully uncomfortable position of siding with people they would never see themselves inclined to agree with. It is Mungiu’s sharpest and most illuminating maneuver.

Once the story moves to the courtroom, “Fjord” begins to resemble 2023’s “Anatomy of a Fall” — another Cannes-winning champ released in the U.S. by boutique distributor Neon — for the way in which it allows American viewers a glimpse into another country’s legal system. It comes off as more conversational and slightly more chaotic than what we are used to in our own domestic courtroom procedurals. As the government prosecutor, Norwegian actor Christian Rubeck gives a smug and condescending tone to nearly every word out of his mouth, becoming the closest thing the movie has to a villain.

Having previously appeared together in the offbeat comedy “A Different Man,” Stan and Reinsve keep the story from feeling like a dour exercise. As Mihai, Stan puts across a low-simmering rage at being put in the position of defending himself at all, while grappling with how to maintain what he sees as his natural role of patriarchal control. Reinsve, known for more outwardly dynamic roles in “The Worst Person in the World” and “Sentimental Value,” here conveys a subdued nuance as Lisbet struggles with understanding her place between her husband and her children.

The moment when the couple’s infant child is taken from them by the authorities is devastating, each of them capturing a sense of helpless isolation from themselves, their community and each other.

Special mention should also go to the performances by Vanessa Ceban and Jonathan Ciprian Breazu as the couple’s teenage children, also to Henrikke Lund-Olsen as a neighbor girl who becomes close to them. These young performers are the film’s secret weapon, since in practical, lived terms they bear the brunt of the existential hand-wringing on the part of all the adults. And too often they become an afterthought.

The poster and key image from the film is a smiling snapshot of Mihai and Lisbet with their children, a seemingly happy family. Or are they? For a movie so steeped in ambiguity and nuance, it also often states its case quite plainly, such as when the couple’s lawyer says no one can really know what goes on in another family. The film asks one to look closer, not just at others but also at one’s own accepted opinions, assumptions and preconceptions. But it ends up with an outcome that feels as sadly inevitable as it is heartbreaking — an ethical knot that cannot be undone.

Ukrainian reports of South Korean fuel exports to Russia come amid strained tensions between Seoul and Kyiv.

South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has said the government will take legal action over illegal fuel shipments to Russia if allegations from an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy are confirmed.

The Foreign Ministry said on Thursday it had not confirmed whether South Korean fuel, including diesel, had been exported to Russia.

It added that exports of some products, such as diesel and jet fuel for commercial purposes, were not included in a South Korean exports control list to Russia.

On Wednesday, the South Korean presidential office dismissed a statement by Vladyslav Vlasiuk, an adviser to the Ukrainian president on sanctions policy, that 176,000 tonnes of fuel were shipped from South Korea to Russia via sanctioned tankers in July and August.

Ukraine’s top sanctions official said the alleged findings run counter to South Korea’s sanctions policy towards Russia.

“Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, our government has consistently implemented sanctions and export controls against Russia in close cooperation with the international community,” South Korean presidential spokesperson Kang Yu-jung said on Wednesday, according to the Yonhap news agency.

“We ask that Ukraine also refrain from distorting the relevant policies of the Republic of Korea without sufficient verification of the facts and making public remarks that can damage international trust,” she added.

Relations between South Korea and Ukraine have been strained for the past couple of weeks after Seoul accused Zelenskyy of having “unilaterally disclosed” to the United Nations General Assembly that Kyiv had transferred two North Korean prisoners of war to South Korea.

Seoul Korea demanded an official apology from Kyiv, claiming the Ukrainian president had breached a non-disclosure agreement. Kyiv said no such agreement was in place.

Pyongyang and Moscow, meanwhile, have deep ties, with the two countries having signed a mutual defence treaty in 2024. According to Ukrainian and South Korean estimates, about 14,000 to 15,000 North Korean soldiers were sent to support Russia’s war efforts against Ukraine.

North Korea and South Korea remain technically at war because the 1950–1953 Korean War ended in an armistice rather than a peace treaty.

Islamabad, Pakistan – More than 9.5 million people have received subsidised petrol under a special fuel relief scheme launched by Pakistan’s prime minister, Federal Minister Shaza Fatima Khawaja told Al Jazeera on Wednesday.

The initiative, aimed at lower-income citizens, comes as the government attempts to help households deal with fuel price increases tied to the war on Iran.

The scheme, launched in September, offers 100 rupees ($0.36) off every litre of petrol to owners of motorcycles, rickshaws and small cars, through a text-message system.

Petrol prices have risen by nearly 50 percent since the war began on February 28, adding to Pakistan’s economic hardship and putting further pressure on consumers already grappling with rising inflation.

How the scheme works

Explaining the process, Khawaja, the minister for information technology and telecommunications, said applicants text their national ID number, vehicle registration, and province to 9771. A second message, sent before each visit to a pump, generates a token redeemable anywhere in the country.

Two- and three-wheelers get 500 rupees ($1.80) a week, capped at four tokens a month. Cars with engines of up to 800cc get 1,000 rupees ($3.60) every 10 days, for three tokens monthly.

After complaints, registration, once a paid service, was made free, and a five-litre minimum purchase was scrapped for the same reason.

Khawaja told Al Jazeera the system had been redesigned based on experiences of users on the ground.

Riders no longer need the vehicle to be registered in their own name, as long as they can supply the exact registration date shown on the documents.

“Even in my own house, there’s a bike registered in our name that our cook uses for daily errands,” Khawaja said, explaining why the ownership requirement for two- and three-wheelers was dropped on September 20.

An earlier cash-transfer scheme in April had reached just over a million bike owners, she said, largely because disbursement required a bank account most riders did not have.

‘The relief is decent’

Government officials say that the scheme has been expanded to include wider sections of society, especially those who depend on their vehicles to generate income.

“There’s a benefit; it’s not like there’s nothing,” Shakeel Ahmed, 45, an electrician in Islamabad, told Al Jazeera. “The relief is decent for people who use it normally, for local trips. But for people like us, who put in 1,000 to 1,500 rupees [$3.60-$5.40] of petrol a day, it’s not enough.”

Safiya Aftab, an economist, told Al Jazeera the scheme has reached the people it was meant to.

“The scheme has indeed reached low-income segments of society, people who typically use two-wheelers and 800cc cars. So yes, it’s a good thing that they are subsidising the poor,” she said.

Aftab, however, also pointed to a levy – 114 rupees ($0.41) for every litre – that the government charges. This, she said, was helping the government raise revenue. She said the government is now earning more than 100 billion rupees ($361m) a month from the levy, which is fuelling inflation.

“The levy was originally meant as a sort of environmental tax, to discourage the use of petrol. Now it has become a full revenue earner for the government, one that helps keep the fiscal deficit down,” the economist said.

What it costs and for how long

The Pakistani government has approved 75 billion rupees ($271m) for the scheme’s first three months, through November.

Petroleum Minister Ali Pervaiz Malik put the running cost at 25-30 billion rupees ($90m-$108m) a month at launch. By late September, he said, it had risen to 35-40 billion rupees ($126m-$144m).

Malik has said the government is prepared to run the scheme for up to 10 months, or “until the end of the war”, if needed.

Pakistan is currently under a $7bn International Monetary Fund programme, and an IMF team is in Islamabad this week for talks with the government as it seeks to keep its fiscal commitments on track while responding to the fuel shock.

Officials familiar with the government’s talks with the IMF say the Fund wants relief capped at three months and routed instead through the Benazir Income Support Programme, the country’s main cash-transfer scheme.

Khawaja said the IMF’s position from the outset was that relief had to be targeted, not universal, which was why the scheme was built around actual token use rather than a blanket price cut.

Who it leaves out

But there are claims that the relief is not reaching all. Cars with engines larger than 800cc, diesel vehicles and public transport are excluded entirely, leading some experts to suggest that the subsidy scheme risks missing the most vulnerable sections of Pakistani society.

“A poor household that uses public transport, walks to work, or relies on diesel-powered transport may receive nothing while still facing higher food and transport costs,” Khaqan Najeeb, a former adviser in Pakistan’s Ministry of Finance, told Al Jazeera.

More than 8.1 million tokens had gone to two- and three-wheelers by late September, compared with fewer than 380,000 for cars, Malik said. A November 2024 Gallup Pakistan survey found that 79 percent of respondents, in rural and urban areas alike, said they use public transport such as buses or wagons.

Does the relief go far enough?

At 100 rupees a litre, the maximum monthly saving is 2,000 rupees ($7.20) for a motorcycle user and 3,000 rupees ($10.80) for an eligible car owner, Najeeb said, calling it “useful household relief, but not enough to offset the broader cost-of-living shock”.

Petrol has climbed from 266 rupees ($0.96) a litre before the war to nearly 395 rupees ($1.42), despite a partial rollback in April. Inflation rose to 10.3 percent in September from 7 percent in February, Najeeb said.

Sajid Amin Javed, a senior economist at the Sustainable Development Policy Institute in Islamabad, said the relief was “minimal”, but added that this was understandable given the IMF constraints on Pakistan.

“The relief is minimal, and that is understandable as we are in an IMF programme,” Javed told Al Jazeera, arguing that cutting the petroleum development levy, which still adds 114 rupees to every litre, would deliver broader relief than a capped subsidy.

“The government is using the petroleum development levy to fill its revenue gap, but that comes at a significant cost in terms of inflation, growth and household welfare,” Javed said.

Najeeb, however, argued the scheme should not become a permanent fixture of Pakistan’s energy policy – and should be used only to make oil price shocks “less damaging”.

Countries in Central Asia have begun buying oil from Iran as the Russian fuel supplies they have long depended on run dry amid Ukraine’s mounting attacks on Russian energy infrastructure to degrade Moscow’s war effort.

In August, Tajikistan announced it was receiving oil and petroleum products from Iran as Dushanbe faces uncertainty over its fuel supply from Russia. Tehran also agreed to establish a joint refinery in Kyrgyzstan in August, and supply the country with crude oil.

Moscow has been facing fuel shortages due to Ukrainian drone strikes on its refineries as Russia’s war on its neighbour continues to rage.

Can the Russian fuel crisis give Iran a new oil opening in Central Asia?

Here’s what we know:

Which Central Asian countries have been affected by Russia’s fuel crisis?

Ukraine’s offensive against Russian energy infrastructure has caused panic across Central Asian countries like Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, which are dependent on Moscow for oil and petroleum products.

Tajikistan has traditionally sourced up to 80 percent of its petroleum products from Russia. Kyrgyzstan also relies on petroleum product imports, sourcing more than 90 percent of its petrol from Russia.

“They’ve been hurt the most,” Galiya Ibragimova, a Moldova-based expert on Central Asia with Carnegie Politika, which has its headquarters in Berlin, told Al Jazeera in an interview in August.

Kyrgyzstan is a member of the Eurasian Economic Union, the free trade bloc of five former Soviet nations dominated by Russia and the Kremlin’s political decisions.

Tajikistan is not a member of the group, but it bought discounted Russian fuel as “payment for political loyalty, not because [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is so kind”, Ibragimova added.

Kazakhstan, meanwhile, boasts three giant, Soviet-era oil refineries. Still, fuel prices in the country have increased by 15.6 percent this year, the UlusMedia website reported on July 10.

Uzbekistan, on the other hand, is less dependent on Russian energy, with domestic production capable of reaching 100,000 tonnes of petroleum products per month, satisfying most of the country’s needs. But due to the increase in oil demand from its regional neighbours, Uzbekistan has also been forced to diversify its imports and has begun striking deals with countries like Georgia and Iraq.

Why is there a fuel crisis in Russia?

Russia has been facing a severe fuel deficit as Kyiv’s drone strikes – launched in an effort to degrade Moscow’s ability to maintain its ongoing invasion of Ukraine – have knocked out an estimated quarter to half of its total oil refining capacity.

To tackle the problem, Russia has imposed fuel rationing. Sales are often limited to about 20-30 litres (about 5-8 US gallons) per vehicle, and drivers must pump fuel strictly into vehicle tanks. Filling jerry cans is largely prohibited.

Earlier, the government banned petrol and jet fuel exports. Officials are now weighing a ban on diesel exports, too. Authorities have loosened fuel-quality regulations, temporarily allowing lower-grade fuel for the domestic market.

A state of emergency has also been declared in Russian-occupied Crimea, which Moscow annexed from Ukraine in 2014. A Russian-owned oil firm in India, Nayara Energy, has reportedly sold petroleum to Russia.

While Russian President Putin acknowledges the crisis, he appears reluctant to end the war on Ukraine and insists the situation is under control.

“These attacks on our facilities certainly create problems – that is obvious. We are currently seeing a certain shortage, though I would say it is not critical,” he said earlier this year.

“First and foremost, we have to rapidly and significantly increase production of air defence systems that are most in demand. We must also continue to improve them… Repairs at refineries must be completed more quickly.”

So, how is Iran helping Central Asia?

Amid Russian fuel shortages, Central Asian countries like Tajikistan have begun striking deals with Iran.

In August, Tajikistan’s Energy and Water Resources Ministry told the Asia-Plus news agency that the country is receiving oil and petroleum products from Iran. The ministry has not disclosed the route used to transport the products, but Tajikistan expects to receive 2.55 million tonnes of oil and petroleum products from Iran.

Besides Tajikistan, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian welcomed a proposal from Kyrgyzstan in August to establish a joint refinery in the Central Asian country, according to a report by Iran’s Tasnim news agency,

Under the agreement, Pezeshkian said, “The crude oil needed by the refinery can be supplied by Iran, and the products can be divided between the two sides.”

Will exporting oil to Central Asian countries help Iran?

The United States and Israel’s war on Iran has affected Tehran’s oil revenues. Data released by the government-administered Statistical Center of Iran in September showed that gross domestic product (GDP) shrank by 10.1 percent year-on-year between March 21 and June 20, the first quarter of the Persian calendar.

Tehran’s ability to sell crude has also been dramatically curtailed by the US naval blockade of Iran’s ports, imposed for most of the war, which began in late February.

Iranian crude and condensate loadings collapsed from about two million barrels per day (bpd) in March to roughly 740,000bpd in July and just 220,000-255,000bpd in August, according to estimates from Kpler and Vortexa.

TankerTrackers.com told the Reuters news agency in September that 29 tankers, carrying 36.11 million barrels of crude, were trapped in the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, Vortexa estimated that total Iranian crude afloat had fallen from 135 million barrels at the end of July to 107 million barrels by late August.

Amid these challenges, Iran has been scrambling to find new countries to trade oil with. Russian fuel shortages have opened up new opportunities for Iran in Central Asia, at least in the short term, according to analysts.

How does Iranian oil reach Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan?

Iran does not share a border with either country.

To get to Tajikistan, Iranian “oil and refined products have to cross Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan by rail”, said Frederic Schneider, a nonresident senior fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs.

To get to Kyrgyzstan, Iranian oil would also need to pass through Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

Is trading oil with Iran logistically sustainable for Central Asia?

It is unlikely, Schneider said.

“This opportunity [for Iran] depends on Ukraine continuing to hit Russian refineries, which seems unlikely, both given the waning of Ukraine’s strike capability and the US government’s demand to stop the attacks as they put too much strain on global oil markets,” he told Al Jazeera.

He noted that US President Donald Trump has pressed his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, repeatedly in September for an “energy truce” with Russia, since diesel prices have become a political problem for Trump ahead of the November midterm elections in the US.

“Those truces have so far collapsed within hours, but the direction is clear. Once the strikes stop, or once Russia repairs its plants, Russian fuel will come back to Central Asia duty-free under Eurasian Economic Union arrangements, and Iran will struggle to compete on price,” he said.

Logistics also favour Russia with respect to importing oil to countries like Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, he said.

Unlike Iran, Russia shares a border with both.

“Tajikistan’s own request [for oil] would need around 51,000 rail tank cars, and its main refinery at Dangara has never operated commercially at scale. Russia, by contrast, has decades’ worth of logistics infrastructure, pipelines, rail links, and supply contracts into the region,” Schneider said.

Is Central Asia a big enough market to compensate for Iran’s Hormuz losses?

No, according to Schneider.

Tajikistan’s total demand, Schneider said, was about 50,000bpd.

That is a drop in the ocean compared with the 1.7 million bpd Iran exported by sea a year ago. China reported $9.96bn in two-way trade with Iran in 2025, a figure that does not include some $31.2bn in Iranian oil shipments, according to the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

“This suggests that Central Asia can be a useful outlet for Iranian diesel and gasoline, but it cannot replace the Chinese market,” Schneider said.

For Tehran, Central Asia’s importance depends on how the US-Israel war on Iran develops, he said, adding that Tehran also needs to stay on good terms with Russia, with which it has a deep strategic partnership.

“Iran cannot afford to be seen as poaching Russian customers too aggressively, so it will present itself as a stopgap supplier, which, again, limits how much it can earn there,” he said.

What other risks does Central Asia face in buying Iranian oil?

Schneider warned that Central Asian nations could be hit with Washington’s secondary sanctions on Iran.

“Legally, US secondary sanctions apply to any foreign company or bank that conducts a significant transaction in Iranian petroleum, wherever it is based, and the Treasury expanded the list of sanctionable conduct in August. A Treasury official has already warned publicly that anyone in this trade ‘incurs that risk themselves’,” he noted.

But Schneider said that, politically, the US sanctioning Central Asian governments is unlikely.

“Central Asia is the arena of a new ‘Great Game’ between Russia, China and the United States, and Washington is courting the region harder than at any point since the 1990s, chiefly for its critical minerals. Kazakhstan alone holds about half of the minerals the US classifies as critical, including uranium and tungsten,” he said.

“Sanctioning a Central Asian government for buying fuel from Iran would push them straight back into closer ties to Russia and China,” he noted.

“What I would expect instead are targeted designations of individual traders, rail and logistics operators and smaller banks, combined with quiet pressure on the region’s correspondent banks. That alone is enough to raise the cost and slow the trade, but will come at the price of these countries redoubling their efforts to decouple economically and financially from the US.”

The hum of the kidney dialysis machine that Onasis Munoz is connected to suddenly stops. The fluorescent lights overhead flicker out, and his room at a clinic in Valencia, Venezuela, is plunged into darkness.

It is not the first time a power cut has interrupted one of the three weekly sessions Munoz needs to do the work his failing kidneys can no longer do, filtering waste and excess fluid from his blood.

For years, electricity would go out every couple of days across parts of Venezuela’s Carabobo state.

But in recent months, Munoz said, the outages have grown to be daily, lasting around seven hours. The clinic’s emergency batteries have since been depleted, and its backup generator no longer works.

He explained that the frequent power failures have disrupted his treatment. His health has slumped as a result.

“I arrive home, exhausted, as if I had run a marathon,” the 34-year-old said.

But often there is no electricity there either, and recent weeks have been sweltering. “I can’t switch on the air conditioning. I cannot rest because of the heat and the mosquitoes. There’s no relief,” Munoz said.

Across Venezuela, the prolonged outages are riling locals, as the electricity supply to homes, businesses and essential services becomes unstable.

Some of the cuts are deliberate, as the government of interim President Delcy Rodriguez rations electricity.

The resulting frustration has spilled onto the streets, where demonstrators hold “cacerolazos” – a traditional form of protest that involves banging pots and pans.

Some have gone as far as blocking roadways and setting tyres on fire. The electricity crisis has also raised concerns about how the government is managing the country’s vast oil supply, a key source of income for the country.

“We are desperate. We cannot understand how a country so rich in resources can be practically left in the dark,” said Patricia Cueva, a lawyer from Maracaibo, the capital of oil-rich Zulia state.

“We cannot rest. We cannot work. Our children cry.”

The Trump administration has warned France and Germany to release emergency diesel reserves to help lower global fuel prices or risk facing a potential US ban on diesel exports, according to people familiar with the discussions.

The warning represents a sharp escalation in Washington’s pressure on European allies as President Donald Trump looks for ways to increase fuel supplies and bring down prices ahead of the November midterm elections.

US officials have become increasingly frustrated with France and Germany, which Washington believes have not fully acted on earlier commitments to release emergency oil and petroleum reserves as global fuel markets face mounting disruptions.

“It is in Europe’s best interest to work with the United States as we pursue multiple pathways to boost the supply of refined products and lower costs for consumers,” a US official told Reuters.

A second source familiar with the discussions said the United States had asked the European Union to release 120 million barrels of diesel over the next six months.

The demand highlights the growing importance of Europe’s fuel reserves at a time when disruptions to major energy-producing regions are tightening global supplies.

Washington Raises Pressure on Europe

The US administration’s warning comes as Trump considers restricting US diesel exports as part of a broader effort to increase domestic supplies and reduce fuel prices for American consumers.

The approach creates a difficult balance for Washington. Limiting exports could increase the amount of diesel available inside the United States, potentially putting downward pressure on domestic prices. But it could simultaneously reduce supplies available to international markets, particularly Europe, which has become increasingly dependent on imported refined fuels.

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said on Wednesday that the administration expected European countries to announce additional diesel supplies soon.

“We’ve lost some diesel exports from the Middle East, although we’re restoring those, and we’ve lost diesel exports from China,” Wright told reporters.

The disruptions have exposed the vulnerability of global refined fuel markets to geopolitical conflicts and changes in trade flows.

Germany’s economy ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment, while France’s energy ministry declined to comment.

The White House’s pressure also appears to have become a broader diplomatic issue among Western allies.

An official at the French presidency said Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron did not discuss the issue when they met on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York last week.

Macron, however, plans to convene a video conference of G7 leaders to address rising fuel prices and the availability of refined petroleum products.

The discussions are expected to include coordination over the release of emergency reserves in cooperation with the International Energy Agency.

Why Europe Matters to the Fuel Market

Europe’s position in the global fuel market has changed substantially since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

European countries previously relied heavily on Russian crude oil and refined petroleum products. The subsequent sanctions and restrictions on Russian energy imports forced European governments and companies to find alternative suppliers.

The result has been greater dependence on imports from countries including the United States and suppliers in the Middle East and Asia.

That dependence has become more significant as the conflict involving the United States, Israel and Iran has disrupted energy flows from the Middle East.

The loss or reduction of refined fuel exports from major suppliers can quickly affect diesel markets because refining capacity cannot always be shifted between regions immediately.

Diesel is particularly important because it powers much of Europe’s commercial transport, heavy industry, agriculture and logistics sectors. Sustained shortages can therefore affect the broader economy rather than simply increasing prices at fuel stations.

The US Faces Its Own Fuel Dilemma

For Trump, the issue also has a strong domestic political dimension.

Fuel prices are highly visible to American consumers, making gasoline and diesel costs politically sensitive ahead of the November midterm elections.

The administration is therefore examining multiple ways to increase available supplies and reduce costs.

But a potential US diesel export ban could have consequences beyond America’s borders.

The United States has become an important supplier of refined petroleum products to international markets. Restricting those exports could tighten supplies elsewhere, potentially pushing international prices higher even if American prices fall.

That creates a difficult policy tradeoff for Washington.

The administration wants to protect US consumers from high fuel costs while maintaining sufficient supply in global markets. European governments, meanwhile, face pressure to use their own emergency reserves even as they seek to maintain energy security following the loss of Russian supplies.

Europe Seeks a Coordinated Response

France appears to be pursuing a broader G7 response rather than treating the issue as a bilateral dispute with Washington.

Macron’s planned meeting would allow the world’s major industrial economies to discuss the availability of refined products and potentially coordinate emergency stock releases through the International Energy Agency.

Such coordination could help prevent individual countries from taking measures that unintentionally worsen shortages elsewhere.

But disagreements over how much fuel should be released, when reserves should be used and who should bear the cost could complicate the process.

Emergency reserves are designed primarily to protect countries against severe supply disruptions. Releasing large quantities can provide temporary relief, but it also reduces the buffer available if another disruption occurs.

That makes Europe’s response particularly consequential at a time when energy markets remain exposed to geopolitical shocks.

A New Test for Transatlantic Energy Relations

The dispute illustrates how the global energy system has become increasingly intertwined with broader geopolitical and trade relationships.

Europe needs reliable fuel supplies after cutting its dependence on Russian energy, while the United States is attempting to use its position as a major energy producer and exporter to address domestic price pressures.

Trump’s warning to France and Germany adds another layer to that relationship by linking European reserve policy to continued access to US diesel exports.

Whether Europe ultimately releases the amount of diesel Washington has requested will depend on national assessments of market conditions, domestic energy security and the risks of further supply disruptions.

For now, the dispute signals that the energy consequences of conflicts in the Middle East are reaching far beyond the region itself.

As the United States and its European allies try to contain fuel prices, they face a common problem but increasingly different pressures over how the burden of stabilising global energy markets should be shared.

With information from Reuters.

The US president said he would end a so-called ‘EV mandate’ that steered consumers to electric vehicles.

United States President Donald Trump has announced new fuel economy standards that roll back requirements adopted under his predecessor, arguing they will lower automobile prices and encourage manufacturers to expand production in the US.

In a social media post on Saturday, Trump said the new standards would “TERMINATE” what he called former US President Joe Biden’s “EV (electric vehicle) mandate”, accusing the previous administration of imposing costly requirements on carmakers and steering consumers towards electric vehicles.

“These new Standards will take the waste out of building cars in America. That means LOWER PRICES, saving families thousands on a new, beautiful, and safe car,” Trump wrote.

The changes form part of a broader Trump administration effort to reverse Biden-era policies supporting lower-emission vehicles, increasing the gap between US policy and global trends favouring electric vehicles.

While Trump and US Republicans have used the term “EV mandate” to describe higher fuel efficiency requirements instituted under Biden, a Democrat, there are no federal guidelines or laws that require Americans to buy electric cars or bar the sale of ones powered by petrol.

At the centre are Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. This system, established by the US Congress in 1975, requires automakers to meet average fuel economy targets across all cars and light trucks they sell, meaning that a brand that sells an inefficient vehicle would also have to sell a more efficient one to help comply with the government’s standards.

Under rules finalised by the Biden administration in 2024, the required fleetwide fuel economy was scheduled to rise from 39.1 miles per gallon (mpg) to about 50.4mpg by 2031. The administration said then the measures would reduce fuel consumption and emissions to combat climate change while helping motorists save money at the pump.

As a result, auto manufacturers have ramped up production of EVs to help meet the Biden-imposed fuel economy requirements. The Republican-controlled US Congress, however, gutted consumer tax incentives last year for electric vehicles as part of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Trump did not provide details regarding what the new fuel economy standards would be. But in December 2025, he announced a proposal that would set the industry fleetwide average for light-duty vehicles at roughly 34.5mpg by 2031, more than 30 percent lower than the Biden-era rule.

In a reposting of Trump’s announcement, US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said an announcement would be “COMING MONDAY”.

Al Jazeera has reached out to the White House for comment.

Diesel prices have hit record highs as the tensions between the United States and Iran, along with the war between Russia and Ukraine, disrupt key oil and fuel trade routes.

On Friday, the average price for a gallon (3.79 litres) of diesel was $6.50, up from $5.61 a month earlier, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), which tracks fuel prices daily.

The spike has prompted the administration of US President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers to consider restricting US diesel exports ahead of upcoming midterm elections.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in August found that 47 percent of voters said the cost of living was the single most important factor in deciding how they would vote in the midterms — more than twice the share who cited the next-most important issue, “democratic values and norms”.

A new Marist poll also found that Americans have more confidence in Democrats than Republicans to handle the economy, with 42 percent choosing Democrats compared with 34 percent for Republicans.

Amid that voter sentiment, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said on Thursday that he was in touch with major oil refiners to gauge interest in a potential voluntary restriction on diesel exports, according to the Reuters news agency.

That followed remarks by Trump on Tuesday that he supported restricting diesel exports from the US, the world’s largest diesel exporter.

Energy analysts and industry groups have warned that an export ban could have unintended consequences, potentially pushing up fuel prices in the US and abroad.

Why are diesel prices so high?

Even though the US is the world’s largest diesel exporter, diesel is traded on a global market.

Disruptions to refineries in Russia and the Middle East have reduced the amount of fuel available worldwide, putting more pressure on US producers to fill the gap. In Russia, for example, drone attacks have damaged major refineries, forcing a cutback or halt in production.

“While US refineries are running at full tilt and higher than normal, the global gaps remain,” Rachel Ziemba, senior adjunct fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told Al Jazeera.

It comes as US diesel supplies are also shrinking. As of September 11, inventories had fallen to 107.9 million barrels, the lowest in more than four decades, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

With global supplies tightening, diesel prices have risen around the world — including in the US. Because American producers can sell their fuel into the global market, they are drawn to the soaring global prices rather than simply setting a lower price for domestic consumers.

Why is the US considering an export ban?

In Washington, DC, leaders have flirted with the idea of pushing US companies to stop or slow exporting diesel.

Republicans have been pushing for a slowdown or outright ban of exports in an effort to lower costs for consumers ahead of the pivotal midterm elections, where cost of living is becoming a critical issue.

Such a move, they hope, would reduce local diesel prices, which is significant as diesel is used in trucks to haul food and most products, Ziemba said, adding that US diesel exports are equivalent to about 40 percent of domestic consumption.

On Tuesday, Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, called on the president to put in place a temporary halt on exports.

“I encourage President Trump to put a temporary embargo on diesel exports through executive action,” Grassley said.

Republican Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska made a similar call: “The cost of diesel is just too damn high. I’m calling for a temporary pause of American diesel exports so that we can rebuild our reserves ahead of winter,” Sullivan said in a statement on Tuesday.

In the House of Representatives, Congressman Tim Burchett of Tennessee introduced two bills that would restrict US diesel exports: One would impose a ban through January 2027, while the other would restrict exports if the national average price reaches $5 a gallon.

The administration has not made any official policy announcements, and the White House told Al Jazeera that the president is evaluating all options.

Oil and gas industry experts say that a ban could drive up prices rather than bringing them down.

“Diesel trades on a world market, just like corn. farmers don’t sell cheaper to Americans, and refiners can’t either since they buy crude at global prices. force a lower price and they’ll make less diesel. less supply means higher prices, not lower,” Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, said in a post on X.

How would an export ban work?

A ban would prevent or restrict US refiners from selling diesel to buyers overseas, theoretically leaving more fuel available in the domestic market.

Analysts at Wood Mackenzie, a research and consulting firm, say that keeping more diesel stateside would ultimately fill up US storage tanks but also force refineries to cut production. That could affect other markets that rely heavily on US fuel, including Latin America and Europe, forcing them to compete with other global buyers for supplies and driving up prices for the global market.

Wood Mackenzie says China is the only major producer with enough spare refining capacity to potentially make up much of the shortfall.

“China is currently the only country with material spare refining capacity that could cover the loss of US refinery throughputs. However, China may well decide it is not in its interest to intercede,” analysts said.

Wood Mackenzie has warned that a ban could quickly fill US diesel inventories, forcing refiners to cut crude runs and potentially increasing US petrol imports.

That was also the view of an S&P Global analysis, which found that a complete ban could also mean that production would be reduced as storage capacity is filled up with unsold diesel. According to the analysis, that could lead to production cuts of as much as 750,000 barrels a day, which could put the US into being a net importer of petrol in the fourth quarter of this year.

Who would an export ban affect?

An export ban would affect US refiners and consumers, as well as countries that rely on US diesel.

“They [export bans] may provide temporary relief, but diesel is a global commodity. Treat one part of the system, and the effects travel elsewhere. Trade-offs are inevitable. Refiners are unlikely to cheer a blanket ban. Voluntary, controlled export reductions would generally be less disruptive in the short term,” Maksim Sonin, visiting scholar at Stanford University’s Precourt Institute for Energy, told Al Jazeera.

Disruptions to US exports could reduce the amount of fuel available on the global market. Wood Mackenzie analysts say countries in Europe and Latin America that rely heavily on US fuel could be forced to compete with other producers for supplies.

“If implemented, it would lead to European and Asian product prices increasing as the buyers of US fuel, mostly in Latin America, scramble to find new supplies, bidding up supplies. European crack spreads could widen, and overall we might see more disruptions,” Ziemba added.

“Given these issues, the US may opt for a mixture of carrots and sticks aiming to incentivise refineries to keep producing, perhaps including penalties if they cut production. There may be voluntary export quotas rather than a formal ban, and there may be exemptions for countries that provide crude oil to the US, like Mexico,” Ziemba said.

That could put pressure on consumers not only at the petrol pump but in the skies as well.

Airlines for America, an airline industry trade group, has also warned that an export ban could lead to higher prices for airlines and travellers, according to the Reuters news agency. The trade group did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

The broader concern from analysts is that restricting exports could reduce US refinery production rather than simply redirecting diesel to US consumers, potentially putting upward pressure on fuel prices both domestically and internationally.

“It’s unlikely to help US consumers much given how it fails to solve underlying problems and could backfire if refineries hold on to production. The best way to address this is to end the conflicts prompting the shortages,” Ziemba said.