oil

Prices spiked as attacks on oil tankers escalated in the Middle East.

Oil prices have increased by four percent, with benchmark Brent crude hitting $105 a barrel after the biggest rise in attacks on shipping since the Iran war began spurred trader concerns about further supply disruptions.

Brent crude futures were up $4.05, or four percent, at $105.26 a barrel by 1215 GMT on Thursday. United States oil topped $100 a barrel for the first time since May, as West Texas Intermediate crude futures CLc1 rose $3.99, or 4.15 percent, to $100.04.

Brent prices have surged by more than 30 percent from lows touched in early August, as a permanent agreement between the US and Iran to cease attacks never materialised and fighting resumed.

Iran-aligned Houthis seized control of Yemen’s port of Mocha on Thursday, further threatening Red Sea traffic, while Gulf traffic remains restricted through the Strait of Hormuz as tanker attacks in the region have intensified in recent days.

“The recent run-up in prices lays bare the market’s approach: this conflict will last longer than anticipated even a month ago, let alone at the beginning of the summer. If oil supply and exports are diminished, the oil balance remains tight and prices remain elevated,” PVM analyst John Evans said.

Iran said it had attacked 10 ships near the Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday, after the US hit five Iranian oil tankers. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it would escalate its response to any further attacks.

While fears of prolonged and more severe supply disruptions in the Gulf have lifted Brent above $100, analysts say the durability of the rally will hinge on China.

Chinese demand

China, the world’s largest crude importer, has stepped up purchases in recent weeks after months of subdued demand, boosting physical crude markets, ING analysts said in a note.

If Chinese buying continues to recover, it could amplify the impact of any supply disruptions and drive prices higher, while a pullback in imports could temper market gains, ING said.

“For months, the bearish case rested on soft Chinese demand,” said David Jorbenaze, global oil market lead at commodities information provider, ICIS.

Rising oil prices have worsened worries about inflation and cranked up pressure within the bond market, helping to lower stocks again on Wall Street.

The S&P 500 fell 0.6 percent and is on track for a fourth straight loss.

The increase in oil prices has pushed the price for a gallon of regular petrol to an average of nearly $4.28 across the US, according to the American Automobile Association. That is not only costing more at the pump but also through higher prices for all kinds of products that move by truck to store shelves.

Following Thursday’s reports, traders are betting on a close to 70 percent chance the Fed will raise the federal funds rate at its meeting next week. That’s up from the 61 percent probability seen the day before, according to data from CME Group. That’s also despite President Donald Trump’s consistent lobbying for interest rates to go lower rather than higher.

The Strait of Hormuz has become the central pressure point in the escalating confrontation between the United States and Iran. Before the conflict, roughly 20 million barrels of oil moved through the narrow waterway each day, equivalent to about one fifth of global oil consumption. For years, traders could therefore rely on relatively consistent estimates of the volumes passing through one of the world’s most important energy corridors.

That certainty has now disappeared.

The use of “dark crossings,” in which tankers switch off their identification and navigation systems, has made vessel movements increasingly difficult to monitor. Satellite imagery, port records, tanker drafts, loading schedules and shipping data are being used to reconstruct movements, but the information remains incomplete. Recent estimates of Hormuz flows have differed dramatically, leaving traders and governments uncertain about the true scale of oil moving through the waterway.

The uncertainty comes as Brent crude has moved above the $100 a barrel threshold for the first time since July, driven by renewed military escalation and concerns over Middle Eastern oil supplies.

The Hormuz Information Gap

The most unusual feature of the current oil crisis is not simply that supplies may have fallen. It is that markets cannot confidently determine how much oil is actually moving.

U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said more than 17 million barrels crossed the strait on August 31 under U.S. Navy supervision. Shipping intelligence firm Kpler, however, estimated that only around 6 million barrels crossed that day. Kpler put average August flows at approximately 4.3 million barrels per day, with flows rising to nearly 5 million barrels per day during the first days of September.

The difference could partly reflect different methodologies, including whether shipments using alternative routes outside Hormuz are included. Tankers that remain invisible to tracking systems for days or even weeks make the picture even harder to reconstruct.

This means that traders are attempting to price global oil supplies without reliable visibility over one of the world’s most important supply arteries.

Why the Strait of Hormuz Matters

Hormuz is strategically important because of the enormous concentration of energy exports that normally pass through it. Any sustained disruption can affect crude supplies, tanker availability, insurance costs and shipping times, eventually feeding into fuel prices and broader inflation.

The current situation is different from a straightforward blockade. The strait has not necessarily become completely impassable. Instead, its reliability has been severely compromised.

That distinction matters because a tanker does not have to be physically prevented from crossing for markets to react. The possibility that vessels may be delayed, attacked or unable to cross safely is enough to increase the cost of transporting oil.

As a result, the market is responding not only to actual supply losses but also to the risk of future disruption.

Iran’s Strategic Leverage

Iran’s ability to disrupt maritime traffic remains an important source of leverage despite indications that its military capabilities around Hormuz have been weakened.

U.S. demining operations and a growing U.S.-protected shipping corridor along Oman’s coast have allowed more vessels to enter and leave the Gulf. At the same time, Iran-linked forces continue to threaten commercial shipping, meaning Tehran retains the ability to create uncertainty even if it cannot completely shut down the waterway.

This gives Iran a form of asymmetric leverage. Tehran does not necessarily need to close Hormuz completely to impose economic costs. Sporadic attacks, warnings or restrictions can increase insurance premiums, delay shipments and encourage traders to price in a greater possibility of supply disruption.

The renewed attacks on Saudi energy infrastructure have added another layer of risk by threatening alternative routes that have become increasingly important as traffic through Hormuz has declined.

Impact on Global Oil Markets

The immediate consequence is a higher geopolitical risk premium on crude.

Oil prices normally respond to measurable fundamentals such as production, consumption, inventories and transportation. But when the market cannot establish how much oil is moving through Hormuz, uncertainty itself becomes part of the fundamental picture.

This can keep prices elevated even if actual physical supply losses are smaller than feared.

Brent has already moved above $100 a barrel, while analysts and major financial institutions have raised their oil price forecasts as concerns about prolonged disruption increase.

For oil-importing countries, sustained high crude prices could translate into higher fuel and transportation costs, increased inflationary pressure and greater economic uncertainty. Airlines, manufacturers and businesses dependent on energy-intensive supply chains would also face higher operating costs.

Economic and Geopolitical Implications

The crisis demonstrates how vulnerable the global energy system remains to a single strategic chokepoint.

For the United States, maintaining freedom of navigation through Hormuz is not simply a military objective. It is also essential to preventing a regional conflict from becoming a wider global energy crisis.

For Gulf producers, the challenge is equally significant. Even countries with substantial production capacity cannot fully compensate for disrupted shipping if export routes remain vulnerable.

For major Asian importers, the risks are particularly serious because much of the energy normally passing through Hormuz is destined for Asian markets. A prolonged disruption could therefore create significant pressure on import bills, currencies and inflation across energy-dependent economies.

The crisis also highlights the limits of alternative routes. Pipelines and routes outside Hormuz can reduce some of the pressure, but they cannot immediately replace the enormous volumes that normally pass through the waterway.

What’s Next?

The key variable is whether the confrontation between Washington and Tehran moves toward negotiations or further escalation.

A diplomatic breakthrough could rapidly reduce the geopolitical risk premium by restoring confidence in shipping and improving visibility over oil flows. A further escalation, however, could produce additional attacks on tankers, restrictions around the Gulf or renewed pressure on alternative shipping routes.

The oil market will therefore be watching tanker movements as closely as military developments.

If shipping activity becomes more visible and flows recover, some of the current premium could disappear. If the information blackout continues, traders may continue pricing the possibility of a much larger supply disruption.

Analysis

The deeper significance of the Hormuz crisis is that information itself has become a strategic commodity.

Modern energy markets have traditionally depended on the ability to monitor ships, cargoes and supply chains with increasing precision. Satellite imagery, tracking systems and port data created an assumption that physical oil flows could be observed and measured with reasonable accuracy.

That assumption is now being challenged.

The result is a market where perception can influence prices almost as powerfully as physical shortages. If traders believe Hormuz is becoming less reliable, they will pay more for crude today even without definitive evidence of a catastrophic supply loss.

This gives Iran an important form of strategic leverage. The threat of disruption can generate economic consequences even when actual disruption remains limited.

At the same time, Washington faces a difficult calculation. Greater military protection may help keep shipping moving, but prolonged confrontation can also increase the geopolitical risk premium that the United States is trying to contain.

The central question, therefore, is no longer simply how much oil is passing through the Strait of Hormuz. It is how long the global market can function without knowing the answer.

If that uncertainty persists, the oil market could continue carrying a substantial security premium even if physical supplies prove higher than current estimates suggest. The longer the uncertainty lasts, the more deeply it can become embedded in prices, inflation expectations and global economic planning.

With information from Reuters.

Published on 09/09/2026 – 10:16 GMT+2•Updated
10:22

The front month contract on Brent crude, the international standard for oil prices, crossed $100 per barrel again on Wednesday morning while the US standard, WTI, hovered around $95.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Prices have risen almost 20% since the middle of last week as fighting around the world’s most important oil chokepoint has once again intensified.

It is also the first time since 23 July that oil has hit the $100 mark.

US Central Command said its forces destroyed five Iranian tankers carrying crude oil on 8 September after Iran’s Revolutionary Guard fired ballistic missiles at a US Navy warship twice within two days. The command did not identify the ship, but said it was not hit and continued patrolling regional waters.

It followed a similar strike on 5 September, when Iranian forces fired ballistic missiles at a US aircraft carrier and a destroyer, both of which evaded the attack. The command responded by disabling or destroying three Iranian tankers.

Tehran retaliated by firing missiles at a US military base in Jordan, where air defences intercepted most of them, and renewed threats to target tankers in Kuwaiti and Bahraini waters.

Iran has also repeatedly warned vessels against using unauthorised routes through the Strait of Hormuz.

Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, said Tehran would soon declare an exclusion zone outside the strait, warning that any vessel entering without Iranian coordination would be added to a sanctions list.

Saudi Arabia has been drawn in too, with Aramco facilities at Jazan attacked again on Monday, though damage was reported as limited.

Roughly 7 million barrels a day are still moving through the Strait of Hormuz, against about 20 million before the war began on 28 February.

No end in sight

The military escalation is running alongside a financial one.

Washington launched Operation Economic Outcast in late August, an effort to sever Iran from the global financial system by targeting its access to digital assets, technology, gold, aviation and shipping.

The US Treasury designated close to 60 companies, individuals and vessels at the outset and has signalled fresh measures weekly, with the European Union endorsing the campaign this month.

Rhetoric on both sides has hardened.

US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said the country “will destroy [and sink]” Iranian oil tankers if Iran fires on American vessels while the Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf replied by stating “strike our assets and you get struck”.

US President Donald Trump has continued to insist the waterway is functioning, posting on Truth Social last week that “Hormuz volumes are BACK” and claiming 18 million barrels a day were flowing.

However, the US Energy Secretary Chris Wright put Monday’s figure at 17 million barrels of crude and products combined, while acknowledging the multi-day rolling average is considerably lower.

During last week’s White House press conference, US Vice President JD Vance also declined to categorise the ongoing conflict as a war and stated that “the only reason we do not have a worldwide energy crisis is because of the leadership of the President.”

Faced with the latest developments, analysts are adjusting upward.

Goldman Sachs raised its Brent and WTI forecasts by $5 on Monday to $85 and $80, respectively, for December and warned prices could exceed $120 next year should Gulf output remain 4 million barrels a day below pre-war levels, though the bank does not treat that as its base case.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said Wednesday they attacked two US vessels, eight oil tankers and 10 “non-compliant vessels” trying to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, state media reported.

“Two US vessels, eight oil tankers, and 10 non-compliant vessels attempting to pass through the prohibited and unsafe zone of the Strait of Hormuz were targeted,” the Guards said in a statement published by the official IRNA.

Meanwhile, six cargo ships transited the Strait of Hormuz yesterday, Tuesday, compared to nine ships the previous day and an average of about 12 ships over ten days, according to shipping data released today, Wednesday.

These numbers may change, as some ships typically choose not to operate their transponders during the voyage.

Preliminary data from Kpler at 0200 GMT showed that five of the six ships entered the strait while one exited, and the group included a Panamax-sized tanker and a medium-sized tanker.

The US-Israeli war on Iran escalated yesterday, Tuesday, as Houthi militia in Yemen, allied with Tehran, launched attacks on Saudi cities, further involving the kingdom in the conflict.

Simultaneously, US forces targeted several Iranian oil tankers, while Iran struck a US base in Jordan.

Meanwhile, 25 cargo ships transited the Bab El-Mandeb Strait yesterday, Tuesday, with 11 ships entering and 14 exiting the other vital Middle Eastern waterway.

This compares to an average of about 27 ships transiting the Bab El-Mandeb Strait over the past ten days.

Among the ships that transited the Bab El-Mandeb Strait were two Suezmax tankers, eight Aframax tankers, and a Very Large Crude Carrier.

US military says it struck the five Iranian tankers after IRGC targeted a US warship twice in two days.

The United States has claimed attacks on five Iranian oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman and near Kharg Island after accusing Iran of launching ballistic missiles at a US warship twice in two days.

Iran responded to the attacks on Tuesday by firing missiles at US forces stationed at the Al Azraq base in Jordan. Amman said its air defences intercepted and destroyed 18 of 20 Iranian missiles, while the rest fell in open areas.

The exchange of fire comes amid escalating tensions in the Gulf, six months into the US and Israel’s war on Iran, with Tehran maintaining the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and Washington imposing a naval blockade on Iranian ports.

The hostilities briefly drove oil prices to $99.46 earlier on Tuesday.

In a statement, the US Central Command said Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had targeted a US warship twice over the past two days. The warship “successfully evaded the attempted Iranian attacks” and “no American personnel were harmed”, it said.

The Central Command said it retaliated by destroying the Iranian oil carriers, M/T Kaviz, M/T Charminar, M/T Horizon 1, and M/T Riesco in the Gulf of Oman as well as M/T Derya near Kharg Island.

“American forces directed the crews to abandon ship before the vessels were struck and rendered inoperable,” the Central Command added.

Iran’s IRIB state broadcaster confirmed the attack near Kharg Island in the Gulf, which handled some 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports before the war. It reported that the crew was evacuated and said a second tanker was hit near the southern port of Jask on the Gulf of Oman.

The IRGC also said “several” Iranian commercial ships were hit, and said it retaliated by subjecting Al Azraq base in Jordan to “fierce missile strikes”. It claimed hangars used by US fighter jets were destroyed in the ballistic missile attacks.

It went on to claim ballistic missile attacks on the US Navy DDG-119 and DDG-53 destroyers, saying “significant damage was caused to these vessels”.

The IRGC also threatened to target oil tankers in Kuwaiti and Bahraini ports, warning crews there to evacuate immediately.

“We warn all the crews of oil tankers in the Kuwaiti and Bahraini ports… to immediately abandon their vessels, whether at anchor or at the ports, because they will be targeted,” it said.

Jordan’s Armed Forces, meanwhile, said its air defences engaged 20 ballistic missiles, “successfully intercepting and destroying 18 of them”. Two missiles “fell in unpopulated areas,” it said in a statement.

The attacks did not cause any casualties and specialised teams “have begun securing the locations where debris and shrapnel fell,” it added.

Earlier, the chief of staff of Iran’s Armed Forces, Ali Abdollahi, had warned that Tehran would strike US military installations across the region if Iranian tankers were targeted.

“The US aggressor army has given Iranian oil tankers an evacuation warning to hit them, so I announce that any attack on Iranian oil tankers will result in the targeting of US bases in the region by the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Abdollahi said on state TV.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, however, said Washington would continue to strike Iranian ships.

“Iran continues to try to hit US naval ships, and for every time they do that or try to do that, they’re going to lose tankers,” Rubio told reporters on a visit to Colombia.

Oil prices are rising to nearly a six-week high amid a wave of strikes between the United States and Iran in the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil supply travels during peacetime.

On Monday, Brent oil futures, the global benchmark, rose to hover around $97 a barrel — up 9 percent over the last five days and 19 percent over the last month. Monday’s market moves are approaching the highest point since July 24th, when prices topped $97.93.

US West Texas Intermediate crude similarly rose to $92.27 a barrel, up 79 cents, also a near six-week high.

In recent days, strikes escalated in the Strait of Hormuz. The US hit three Iranian oil tankers on Saturday, while Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said it had struck three tankers and three US-linked vessels in other areas.

“This is a reflection of continued conflict and exchange of fire. The supply deficits globally are persisting, and there is little end to these shortages,” Rachel Ziemba, an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), told Al Jazeera.

On Monday, Saudi Aramco’s Jizan facilities were struck for the second time in the last month, according to reporting from the Financial Times that cited two people familiar with the matter.

“The fact that a Saudi refinery in Jizan was hit, possibly delaying its return to production, didn’t help,” Ziemba added.

Amid increased strikes, there’s less traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, with an average of 10 commodity ships crossing the vital chokepoint each day over the last 10 days, according to Kpler, a data analytics platform.

“Crude went back down to what the pre-war level was in early July. Then it increased again, and then it reduced again, and now it’s increasing again on this weekend’s exchange plus the Aramco attack,” Arif Gasilov, a partner at the Gasilov Group, an energy advisory firm, told Al Jazeera.

“I would say that you might eventually see an inflection point, depending on how long this keeps going on, where a ceasefire doesn’t move the market at all, maybe by just a dollar or two.”

US consumers pinched

US consumers are feeling the impact of heightened oil prices at the petrol pump. The average price for a gallon (3.78 litres) of petrol has jumped 7 cents over the course of a week, reaching $4.15 nationally on Monday, up from $4.08 this time a week ago, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), which tracks daily petrol prices.

That’s up from $4.04 this time a month ago and $2.98 from February 28th, when the US and Israel first struck Iran, marking a 39 percent increase since the war began.

Last week, diesel prices hit all-time highs at $5.85 per gallon.

“US diesel prices have never been this high, and now the countdown starts for the trickle-down to everything consumers buy… record diesel will start funnelling down into the economy,” Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, said in a post on the social media platform X.

Prices have continued to climb since, with average prices on Monday topping $5.90 per gallon.

“Markets are pricing in longer disruptions. It continues to be in product markets where the biggest disruptions lie, though, including diesel,” Ziemba added.

Those price gains are weighing on Americans, who have spent an average of $764.59 per household on fuel since the war began. That’s $418.82 more than usual, according to Brown University’s Watson School of International and Public Affairs.

Ahead of the US’s September 5-7 Labor Day weekend, the unofficial end of summer and a popular time for US travel, AAA forecasts showed a 20 percent increase in flight costs compared to the same weekend last year.

Ahead of the midterm elections, the economy is emerging as a key issue for US voters — and a potential warning sign for Republicans. Polls show voters souring on President Donald Trump’s handling of the economy, with his economic approval rating falling to a new low in a recent Financial Times poll. Just 17 percent of Americans approve of his handling of the economy.

An Economist/YouGov poll similarly found that 39 percent of Americans believe Democrats are doing a better job handling the economy, compared with 32 percent who said Republicans are.

China pressures

Southeast and East Asian markets rely more heavily on imports travelling through the Strait of Hormuz directly than the US, but Beijing has moved to insulate itself from the disruption by turning to domestic sources, including its strategic petroleum reserve (SPR).

“China has been managing this situation successfully since the beginning of the war. We know that China has many domestic resources, despite rising oil prices,” John Gong, an economics professor at the University of International Business and Economics, told Al Jazeera.

“China has been conserving its oil and gas consumption for quite some time now. China was prepared for these challenges,” Gong said.

He also stressed that China’s close relations with Russia give Beijing another source of supply, with Moscow able to provide nearly half of China’s daily oil needs.

China has also begun tapping into its SPR while reducing its reliance on imports, as Beijing accelerates a broader shift towards alternative energy sources and vehicles that require little or no oil to operate.

“We have national strategies focused on transitioning to clean energies like solar and green power,” Gong said. “When we look at the vehicles purchased in China, more than 50 percent of cars sold on the Chinese market are electric.”

WASHINGTON — A sporadic global trade war led by President Trump is fueling inflation across the U.S. economy, elevating prices on everyday goods, as the war with Iran sends the price of gas on a roller coaster.

Aggressive tax cuts have pushed the national debt past $40 trillion, driving a growing crisis in the bond market. And an unprecedented immigration crackdown is disrupting the labor supply in agriculture, construction, hospitality and food processing, raising prices even further.

Approaching the halfway point of Trump’s second term, a president who won reelection based on a promise to turn the economy around now faces a reckoning in the midterm elections centered largely on his economic record.

Trump’s economic agenda has emerged as an increasingly awkward liability for Republicans heading into the November elections, leaving lawmakers to defend policies that have delivered political pain at home, even as the White House argues they will pay off in the long run.

Polling on Trump’s handling of the economy has remained in precariously low territory throughout the summer, entering Labor Day weekend with less than a third of Americans supporting his job performance on their most pressing concerns. One recent poll, from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, found that only 22% perceive the economy in a good or fair state.

Shoppers at Lincoln Heights Certified Farmers Market in Los Angeles on Wednesday.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

And Americans’ confidence in the economy is unlikely to improve much ahead of election day, Nov. 3, in part because bad economic news has shown to sink confidence fast. Good news takes much longer to win people back, experts said.

“Voters’ opinion of the economy has mostly hardened,” said Aaron Klein, chair of economic studies at the Brookings Institution. “People vote the economy of the spring and summer, not November.”

Good news has been harder to come by.

Heading into the holiday weekend, Trump dismissed communities opposed to data-center construction as “backwards and poor.” A rapidly escalating trade dispute with Canada threatens Republican gains in battlegrounds along the northern border that could determine control of the Senate.

Sean Zabriskie, center, helps his son Connor, 7, try on hockey pants at The Ice Box Hockey shop in Harbor City. The trade war between the U.S. and Canada is affecting products like hockey gear, most of which is made in Canada and imported to the U.S.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

And fresh polling found that more than 90% of Americans believe corruption is rampant in Trump’s government, even as the president spends hundreds of millions of dollars on vanity projects across the capital.

Susan Collins, the incumbent Republican senator from Maine seeking another term in a strategically critical race, chastised the Trump administration for its latest trade spat with Ottawa as “making the job harder” of securing reelection.

“There’s just nothing good you can say about them,” Collins said of the tariffs.

Trump has pushed back on criticisms of his record, declaring the country has “the greatest economy we’ve ever had” and touting what he calls a manufacturing boom, all while distancing himself from potential midterm losses.

“I’m not affected by the election,” Trump told reporters last week. “I’m not running. But my party’s running, and I’m going to help my party.”

But Rep. Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican and speaker of the House, said last week that the midterms would serve as a referendum on Trump’s presidency.

Rep. Aisha Wahab (D-Hayward) and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La. ) arrive for a ceremonial swearing-in at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 2.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

“Even though his name isn’t in the midterm, his legacy is,” Johnson said. “The America First priorities and principles are. His administration is.”

Several embattled incumbents fear that’s the case and are distancing themselves from the president. Several Republican lawmakers — including Reps. Tom Barrett of Michigan and Zach Nunn of Iowa — plan on skipping a midterm GOP convention called by Trump for this week in Texas.

Joanne Hsu, director of the University of Michigan’s Survey of Consumers, said that gas prices were a chief frustration among Americans, and found that consumer sentiment soured rapidly once it became clear the conflict in Iran would not be short-lived.

“Consumers are absolutely not feeling great about the economy right now, and the factors that are underpinning their frustrations with the economy at this time are factors that are pretty tough to turn around on short notice,” Hsu said.

Even if the Iran conflict reached a resolution, confidence in the economy is likely to change only when the prices are reflected at the gas station, she said.

“When it comes to the views of the economy, it’s really about what’s happening to my wallet,” Hsu said.

During a White House press media briefing on Thursday,Vice President JD Vance acknowledged the Iran war has led gas prices to rise and that he does not know when Americans can expect those prices to go down.

Vice President JD Vance talks to reporters during a news briefing at the White House on Sept. 3.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

“The reason gas prices are so high now is because the Iranians are shooting at commercial shipping,” Vance said. “Gas, frankly, could have been much, much higher were it not for our efforts. But I am not going to make a promise about when it is going to return to $3.”

The day after Vance spoke, diesel hit a record all-time high of $5.85 a gallon. In California, it sold for as much as $7.71.

Yet Trump has tried to downplay the economic pressure the war in Iran is placing on Americans, in particular as the Strait of Hormuz — a vital shipping corridor for oil and gas — remains under threat by Iranian troops.

Diesel prices over $7 a gallon are displayed at a gas station in Los Angeles on Aug. 21.

(Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)

“We have the Strait of Hormuz in extremely good shape,” Trump said, adding that the U.S. Navy has escorted ships through the channel. “A lot of oil is coming out. That’s why you haven’t seen the price of oil going the way they thought it might have to go.”

Trump on Monday also touted an agreement with the Venezuelan government to develop a vast amount of the South American country’s oil reserves. Asked how he sees the deal affecting American consumers, Trump said: “Ultimately prices are going to come down.”

One of the Arts of War statues, newly covered in gold leaf, is visible at Arlington Memorial Bridge near the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

“Now, will it happen before the election? I can’t tell you that. But I think people are very smart,” he said.

For some Americans, the economic pressures are a key driver ahead of the midterm elections.

Monica Escalante, a home care provider who is a member of the United Domestic Workers union, said she started feeling the pinch on her wallet after Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on a number of products she buys at the grocery store. Gas, she noticed, became harder to cover after the Iran war started.

Escalante, who lives in Bakersfield, said she also has to drive her client to the grocery store, and that mileage reimbursements are not enough to cover her costs.

“It’s really hard when I don’t have the money for gas, and she doesn’t have the money for gas. Then it is like: What do we do?” she said. “It is either she’s borrowing or I’m trying to figure out how I can get gas in my tank.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump has locked in a deal to develop Venezuela’s vast oil resources, an arrangement the White House says will bring a country battered by years of economic collapse to a “place where elections are possible.”

But the agreement — backed by acting President Delcy Rodríguez, a holdover from the Nicolás Maduro government that Washington deems “illegitimate” — is raising new uncertainty about how entrenched the unelected government may become.

In January, when the U.S. military captured Maduro, Trump did not say how long a democratic transition would take but said Rodríguez was “gracious” and “essentially willing to do what we think is necessary.”

Asked by The Times on Wednesday what was stopping him from demanding Venezuela set a firm election date, Trump was blunt: “I just don’t think they are ready yet.”

“It’s very new. We took them out of a dictatorship and we’re getting along great with the government,” Trump said. But he said an election would happen “soon.”

U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright walks alongside Venezuela’s interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, after a news conference on the deal to develop 17 oil fields in the country.

(Jesus Vargas / Getty Images)

Under the deal, the U.S. government is partnering with an oil producer to create a new company, North American Blue Energy Partners, to develop 17 fields with a proven potential of 65 billion barrels. NABEP will have rights to the fields for 100 years.

For many Venezuelans, the lack of urgency around elections — set against a deal that gives the United States majority control over roughly a third of the country’s oil reserves — is starting to feel like a broken promise.

“They tell us we have to wait two years, maybe more, while in the meantime they do business with a government that wasn’t elected, that was imposed on us, and that we don’t want,” Carlos Pérez, a 23-year-old automotive mechanics student, told The Times.

Antonio Marchetti, a 45-year-old plumber and electrician, said that while he sees the removal of Maduro as a “good thing,” the oil deal makes it seem as though Trump’s plans were those of a “cowboy, the invader John Wayne,” all along.

“We were expecting elections,” Marchetti said. “This pact with Trump entrenched the dictatorship that he himself declared war on. But to get rid of Maduro, he left the rest and did business with them. It disgusts me.”

A man holds a sign that reads in Spanish, “Yankee out, murderers” during a protest in Caracas on Aug. 29 against President Trump’s deal giving the United States a stake in Venezuela’s oil reserves.

(Pedro Mattey / Associated Press)

The frustrations go beyond Venezuela. In Washington, Republican lawmakers have praised the oil deal, while calling Rodríguez an “interim dictator” who cannot be trusted.

María Corina Machado, the exiled leader of the Venezuelan opposition and a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, on Thursday raised her own worries about what the oil deal means for the future of Venezuela.

In a video message, Machado stopped short of criticizing Trump’s oil deal, but acknowledged concerns about a pact negotiated with an “illegitimate” government.

“Venezuelans know that there can be no development without strong institutions and a government elected by popular vote,” she said. “That is the only real guarantee of success and stability for any large-scale investment.”

A plan in the works

Trump administration officials have characterized the deal as an economic lifeline that will eventually stabilize a country and prepare it for free and fair elections.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last week that the United States is facilitating talks between Venezuela’s interim government and Dinorah Figuera, an opposition figure leading Venezuela’s 2015 National Assembly, the last democratically elected legislature recognized by the United States.

Machado has been left out of those talks. They are expected to resume in mid-September.

Rubio says that for any election to be “credible,” the voting system will require an overhaul and political parties will need time to organize. Steps also must be taken to ensure the country has a free press.

Echoing Rubio’s comments, the White House said Friday that Trump wants elections held at the “right time,” but that his top priority is to bring Venezuela “back from the dead and rebuild the country after it was incompetently ruled by a nasty dictatorship.”

U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright meets with Venezuelan acting President Delcy Rodríguez at Miraflores presidential palace in Caracas on Sept. 2.

(Pedro Mattey / Ap Photo/pedro Mattey)

On Wednesday, while Energy Secretary Chris Wright visited Caracas, Rodríguez declined to set a firm date for an election, but added, “I have worked tirelessly to ensure that Venezuela is ready and prepared when the time comes for its electoral process, which will take place — have no doubt about that: There will be an electoral process.”

The open-ended approach to holding an election, however, has drawn criticism from former Trump administration officials, who argue the lack of a timeline essentially lets Rodríguez govern indefinitely.

“Here’s my fear: It makes us Delcy’s partner, and gives the president a reason to want her to remain in power,” Elliott Abrams, who served as U.S. special envoy to Venezuela during Trump’s first term, told The Times.

He contended that the White House so far appears to prefer a pliant interlocutor, and Rodríguez, he says, will do “whatever Trump tells her to do.”

If an election is to take place in Venezuela, a nine-month runway for preparation is likely to be expected, Abrams said.

People shop for produce at a market in Maracaibo, the heart of Venezuela’s oil industry. .

(Ariana Cubillos / Associated Press)

In Washington, some Republican lawmakers have continued to call for elections in Venezuela, arguing that Rodríguez cannot be trusted.

“The only way we will have a prosperous Venezuela is with the end of the murderous regime and the return of democracy,” Rep. Carlos A. Gimenez (R-Fla.) wrote on social media. He also called Rodríguez an “interim dictator.”

In an interview with NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said he does not necessarily think elections should happen before the oil agreement is finalized, but he said they “need to proceed rapidly.”

“I believe they should proceed no later than midway through next year,” he said.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) said he is working with Trump and Rubio to ensure “free, fair and transparent elections as soon as possible.” He did not, however, say what would constitute “soon.”

Mixed views on economic hope

In the Lake Maracaibo region, an area that would see renewed investments under the oil agreement, Junior Araujo — a 47-year-old oil worker — sees a “wonderful opportunity to be reborn.”

Araujo, the father of three, is in desperate need of a better economic outlook. He works 120 hours a week and earns only $20. For his family, food alone usually costs about $150 a week.

“We have to get creative and find new ways to make ends meet through side jobs like selling clothes and making yogurt,” he said. “That’s our real financial situation.”

Venezuelans watch oil tankers anchored in Lake Maracaibo on Sept. 4. Much of the country’s oil industry is centered in the Maracaibo region.

(Humberto Matheus/Sipa USA via Associated Press)

For Araujo, the hope for a better economy does not take away his frustrations with the government.

“We’re neither happy nor dancing here, all our benefits have been taken away from us,” he said. “Our main problem is the current government; we need to restore our institutions.”

Nazareth Lezama, a 35-year-old teacher, also sees the oil deal as an economic opportunity but remains concerned that the current government may not have negotiated the best price or conditions for Venezuela. She added this has happened in the past.

“We must be clear that this regime destroyed the oil industry,” she said, adding that Venezuelans “need elections to choose leaders based on merit.”

Marchetti, the plumber from Caracas, says the oil deal is a “100-year chain” on Venezuelans imposed by Trump. He said it has become the “last straw” for him, and he has decided to leave Venezuela and emigrate to Europe.

“With all the pain in my heart, I will leave everything behind. I have a European passport; it won’t be easy to start a life from scratch, but there is no hope left here,” he said.

He does not know where he will land yet. But he knows he needs to leave Venezuela.

“This ship is sinking,” he said.

Times staff writer Ceballos reported from Washington. Special correspondent Mogollón reported from Caracas.

RIYADH: Companies listed across the Gulf Cooperation Council posted a record $74.8 billion in net profits in the second quarter of 2026, up 31.3 percent year on year, driven by gains in the energy and banking sectors, according to an analysis.  

In its latest report, Kamco Invest said the rise in net profit also reflected higher average crude oil prices amid the regional geopolitical situation, which more than offset a decline in crude oil exports from the region. 

Compared with the previous three months, net profit of listed companies in the GCC region increased 10 percent. 

The strong figures underscore the resilience of GCC corporates even as geopolitical tensions and regional disruptions continue to weigh on investor sentiment. The gains also highlight the continued importance of energy to Gulf corporate earnings, even as governments pursue economic diversification and non-oil sectors expand.  

In its report, Kamco stated: “At the country level, the increase in profits mainly reflected double-digit y-o-y growth in profits for Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Oman and 4.9 percent growth in profits for companies listed on Dubai Exchange.  

It added: “On the other hand, Qatari and Bahraini companies reported decline in quarterly profits by 20 percent and 0.4 percent, respectively.” 

Industry observer Tony Hallside, CEO of STP Partners, said the record $74.8 billion profit figure reflected strength beyond the headline number. “Higher oil prices clearly provided a major tailwind, with energy-sector profits rising more than 40 percent, but earnings growth across several other sectors shows that corporate activity remains resilient.”  

He added: “For investors, that breadth is arguably more important than the record number itself.”  

Aggregate revenues for GCC-listed companies rose 17 percent year on year to $381.6 billion in the second quarter and 8.1 percent quarter on quarter. 

Excluding Saudi Aramco, revenue growth for the rest of the region remained in double digits at 11.4 percent. 

Saudi Arabia leads growth 

Saudi-listed companies accounted for the bulk of the gain in the region, with aggregate net profits rising 36.7 percent to $45.3 billion from $33.2 billion a year earlier. 

Energy, banking and materials together made up 92 percent of Saudi earnings in the quarter. 

Saudi Aramco’s net profit increased 42 percent year on year to $32.4 billion, supported by a 19 percent rise in total revenue as realized crude prices climbed from $66.7 a barrel in the second quarter of 2025 to $108.1 a barrel in the second quarter of this year. 

Saudi Arabia’s banking sector net profits increased 8.3 percent to $6.6 billion from $6.1 billion, supported by strong lending growth and resilient operating income. 

Al Rajhi Bank reported $1.9 billion net profit, up from $1.6 billion, driven by a 13.7 percent increase in net income from financing and investments and a 13.3 percent rise in total operating income. 

Saudi National Bank recorded a 7.5 percent increase in net profit to $1.8 billion, mainly supported by a 1.6 percent rise in income from financing and investments. 

“Saudi Arabia remains the earnings engine of the GCC market. Aramco was clearly a major contributor as higher crude prices lifted energy earnings, but the more interesting figure is that Saudi-listed company revenues still grew around 11 percent excluding Aramco,” said Hallside.  

He noted that it points to “broader corporate momentum and gives investors more evidence that the opportunity set in Saudi equities is widening beyond the traditional energy story.”   

Wider regional outlook  

Kuwaiti companies recorded the largest percentage increase, with net profits almost doubling to $3.1 billion, partly reflecting the absence of large losses from discontinued operations that weighed on Agility in the year-earlier quarter. 

Abu Dhabi profits rose 41.8 percent year on year to $14.7 billion. Dubai-listed firms grew 4.9 percent to $6.9 billion. 

Qatari companies saw profits fall 20 percent to $2.9 billion, while Bahraini firms declined 0.4 percent to $572 million. Omani companies rose 24.2 percent to $1.4 billion. 

In the first half of 2026, aggregate net profits for GCC-listed companies rose 23.1 percent, or $26.8 billion, to $142.81 billion. The increase was led by almost 30 percent growth in Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia, followed by a 14.6 percent rise in Oman. Kuwaiti and Dubai-listed companies registered high single-digit growth, while Qatar and Bahrain recorded declines of 11.6 percent and 0.2 percent, respectively. 

Sectoral outlook  

Sector performance was mixed but broadly positive. Energy profits jumped 41.6 percent year on year to $36.2 billion in the second quarter. 

Food, beverage and tobacco more than doubled to $3.9 billion. Real estate, materials, capital goods and transportation also posted higher profits. 

Banks reached a record $17.8 billion, up from $16.6 billion, with six of seven country aggregates higher. Telecom recorded modest growth. Utilities, food and staples retailing, and media and entertainment declined. 

“What stands out is the divergence within the GCC. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Oman all delivered double-digit profit growth, while Qatar and Bahrain saw declines. That tells investors this remains a market where country and sector selection matters,” said Hallside.  

He noted that banks and telecoms continued to grow, albeit more moderately, while energy, real estate, materials and transportation were stronger. “The GCC cannot be treated as one homogeneous equity market; earnings drivers are becoming increasingly differentiated,” Hallside added. 

The latest flare-up of fighting between the U.S. and Iran has seen American forces strike two Iranian oil tankers in retaliation for Tehran’s attacks on ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz. This new “tanker-for-tanker” targeting policy, first reported by Axios, marks a change from previous incidents where ships were only attacked for running the ongoing U.S. naval blockade on Iranian ports.

The two nations have resumed hostilities after a month-long pause in kinetic strikes against each other. The two Iranian tankers were struck in a round of attacks U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) said it carried out Tuesday in response to “recent attempted attacks by the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] against commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and against American service members.”

Iran, claiming several civilians were killed in the U.S. strikes, quickly followed those attacks by launching missile and drone barrages against U.S. facilities in Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan and Kuwait.

The new U.S. “tanker-for-tanker” policy of carrying out retaliation strikes on Iran’s fleet of oil transport vessels, was approved by Trump, Axios noted. The policy was designed to “further deter Iranian attacks on tankers that move through the strait.

“The Iranian government tankers were anchored off Iran’s coast north of the U.S. naval blockade line,” the outlet stated, citing anonymous U.S. officials. “U.S. drones launched missiles that hit their engine rooms.”

The attacks on the Iranian tankers were “part of a plan Trump and his senior aides have been considering in recent days to prevent Iran from rebuilding the radar and missile capabilities it needs to attack ships crossing the strait,” the outlet stated. “One U.S. official said the idea is to reduce the risk of Iranian attacks on oil tankers, U.S. Navy ships and Air Force aircraft — to ‘mow the lawn,’ as this person put it. A U.S. official told Axios on Tuesday that the new strikes degraded Iran’s attack capabilities in the strait and ‘bought at least a month’ of lowered threat levels for commercial ships.”

CENTCOM released a video after the conclusion of its Sept. 1 strikes that included what appears to be strikes on two separate vessels. One can be seen at about the 39-second mark of the video and another about 10 seconds later.  It’s not exactly clear from the video what kind of munitions were used, however, you can read more about how CENTCOM disabled ships trying to run the blockade here.

A CENTCOM spokesman declined to say if those ships were struck under a new policy and referred that question to “policymakers.” We have reached out to the White House for comment.

The CENTCOM statement about those strikes makes no mention of oil tankers.

“U.S. forces struck Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) targets including air defense sites, radar systems, maritime assets and facilities, mine laying capabilities, and communications sites,” the command stated on X. “The strikes follow recent attempted attacks by the IRGC against commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and against American service members.”

Talking to Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who runs the Lt. Dan podcast, President Donald Trump on Wednesday claimed that more than two dozen Iranian ships were destroyed in the U.S. attack; however he did not specify what kind or how.

“We now control the Strait of Hormuz. We control it,” Trump claimed. “Last night we took out 28 boats, 28 ships. We control it, they get nothing, and we took out ships.”

We reached out to the White House for clarification about what kind of ships Trump says were destroyed.

Trump also took to Truth Social to suggest the Strait be named in his honor.

“Now that we have it under U.S.A. control, should we change the name Hormuz Strait to TRUMP STRAIT??? Like America itself, it would be ‘hotter’ than ever before!” the president proclaimed.

The US military says it has hit three Iran-linked oil tankers after ballistic missiles were launched towards two of its warships in the region.

US Central Command (Centcom) said on Saturday it had “permanently disabled” a tanker near Kharg Island and another near the Strait of Hormuz, and “completely destroyed” a third in the Gulf of Oman.

Centcom said it “successfully evaded” multiple attacks from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) targeting a US aircraft carrier and guided-missile destroyer. No American troops were harmed, it said in a statement.

Iranian state media earlier reported that one of its tankers had been struck off the coast of Kharg Island.

Tehran did not immediately acknowledge attacks on US ships.

Admiral Brad Cooper, Centcom’s commander, said in a statement on Saturday: “Let the message to the IRGC be clear: If you shoot at two of our ships, we will impose an even higher economic cost – taking out three of yours.”

“We will not hesitate to defend American forces, and if necessary, destroy Iran’s limited and exposed oil fleet.”

Centcom, which oversees US military operations in the Middle East, claimed that the three Iranian oil tankers were “part of a multibillion-dollar shadow network that funds the IRGC and its regional proxies”.

The strikes come nearly a week after renewed attacks between the US and Iran, which followed a period of relative calm between the warring sides.

WASHINGTON — Vice President JD Vance rejected the use of the word “war” to describe the U.S. fighting with Iran as he steered clear of predicting that the six-month-old conflict would be over by November’s midterm elections, in which Republicans are trying to hang on to their narrow majorities in Congress.

“I wouldn’t call it a war,” Vance said Thursday after being asked during a White House press briefing about whether the fighting could end before voters cast their ballots in the Nov. 3 congressional elections. “Right now, there is no active shooting.”

Vance’s assertion came even as Iran fired at U.S. Gulf ally Kuwait on Thursday as it continued to retaliate for rounds of U.S. strikes on Iran earlier in the week.

The vice president said the U.S. had a “responsibility” to carry out this week’s strikes because Iran continued to target commercial vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

Vance’s attempt to minimize the intensity of the fighting illuminates the difficult task at hand for Trump and his administration as he tries to persuade American voters to keep Republicans in control of Congress, even as the unpopular conflict — one the White House said at its outset would last a matter of weeks — has driven up gas prices and left consumers grappling with higher inflation.

Vance said he didn’t want to set “artificial timelines.”

“But when you ask, ‘When will this end?’ You’re asking me a question like, ‘When will the Iranians stop shooting at ships?’” Vance said. “I think the reality is, I don’t know the answer to that question. You would have to ask the Iranians.”

The administration in July faced scrutiny after it reclassified four fallen soldiers as well as dozens of wounded troops in its Defense Casualty Analysis System, which Pentagon officials have repeatedly pointed to as the definitive source on the numbers of dead and wounded from the conflict. Those killed or wounded in fighting after a brief ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran fell apart were classified in a new category called “Overseas Operations” after initially being tallied in the totals from the war.

White House insists more oil is getting out of Gulf, but prices remain high

Brent crude prices hovered above $95 per barrel Thursday. The international benchmark was around $72 per barrel the day before the conflict began.

Still, Trump and his aides have sought to push that the U.S. Navy is in control of the Strait of Hormuz, where about 20% of the world’s traded oil passed before the war. They insist a near prewar level of Gulf oil is now making its way out of the critical waterway.

Vance at Thursday’s press briefing said the U.S. escorted about 15 million barrels of oil on Wednesday. This was after Energy Secretary Chris Wright told CNBC on Wednesday that 17 million barrels were carried through the strait on Monday with assistance from the U.S. Navy. About 20 million barrels of Gulf oil flowed through the strait prior to the start of the war.

But ship traffic through the strait remains well below prewar levels, according to independent firms that track marine traffic.

There were 102 transits last week and 126 the week before, according to shipping data company Lloyd’s List Intelligence, compared with 130 or more per day before the war.

Over the past 28 days, 5 million barrels a day have exited the strait on average, according to TankerTrackers.com. Other recent estimates have varied from 2 million barrels per day to 6 million barrels per day.

Trump has tried to soothe volatile markets

Over the course of the war, Trump has repeatedly reported progress in negotiations or called off threats of military action at the last moment when global markets have become jittery. And markets have reacted swiftly to his public signals of peace or hints of progress.

“The administration is still jawboning oil markets,” said Rosemary Kelanic, Middle East director at Defense Priorities, of the administration’s claims of dramatically increased flows of oil. “And they appear to be doing it again to keep prices from going too high, so that they can extend the timeline before there’s a worse price spike.”

With Iran’s refusal to back down in the face of the U.S. military campaign, Trump has settled on a dual-prong approach that combines economic pressure with threats of an escalation in force, if necessary.

Trump has consistently emphasized that the campaign launched by the U.S. and Israel has been devastating for Iran’s navy and air force. Iranian officials have said the country has suffered $270 billion in direct and indirect damage. Israeli military strikes in the first weeks of the war wiped out much of the theocratic government’s leadership structure, including its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Still, Iran has found leverage through its own strikes on the strait and Gulf allies of the United States. But the administration has sought to make the case that the waterway will become less important by the day, even as it asserts that more oil is getting through.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a Fox Business interview this week that the Strait of Hormuz will become a “worthless piece of water” within two years as new land pipelines planned for the region bypass the energy chokepoint. Trump himself took to social media on Thursday to highlight a news report about Syria’s effort to transform the port of Baniyas on the Mediterranean coast into a westward route to international markets for Gulf exporters.

Meanwhile, Iran and Oman have recently discussed a phased approach to jointly managing ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump settles into holding pattern before midterms, analysts say

The administration maintains it’s making progress economically choking off Iranian hard-liners, including the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. At the moment, it would be a leap for Trump to agree to any plan that puts Iran in position to claim control of the strait, analysts say.

“I find it hard to believe the president would agree to anything that hands back any modicum of IRGC control over the strait that has been wrested away,” said Richard Goldberg, who served as a senior adviser on Iran policy in Trump’s first administration.

Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Iran does not appear ready to “let Trump out of the box” despite the massive pain being inflicted on its economy.

At the same time, Miller said, Trump seems to have settled into a holding pattern ahead of the midterms — one in which he avoids both a return to the full-throttle bombardment of Iran and making any accommodations to Tehran on the Strait of Hormuz.

“The White House doesn’t want a massive war, and they don’t want to be seen as offering massive concessions,” Miller said. “The tack they are taking avoids both of those things.”

Madhani writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Jonathan J. Cooper and Josh Boak in Washington and David McHugh in Frankfurt, Germany, contributed to this report.

Caracas, September 3, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez and US Energy Secretary Chris Wright celebrated an oil agreement between the two countries and North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP) and a flurry of additional energy deals signed on Wednesday.

“This is a historic day in the transformation of Venezuela,” Wright said in a joint press conference at Miraflores Palace. “President [Donald] Trump has a clear mission in Venezuela: to bring peace, freedom, and prosperity to everyone.”

The US official went on to praise the “enormous deal” announced last Friday that will see NABEP, a company owned by Venezuelan businessman Alejandro Betancourt, receive long-term concessions for 17 prime oilfields in the Caribbean nation that hold 65 billion barrels of reserves.

According to the White House, the US Department of War’s Office of Strategic Capital (OSC) will acquire a 35 percent stake in NABEP through penny warrants. The US State Department will be able to purchase 20 percent of NABEP’s production at cost and hold a right of first refusal for the remaining 80 percent. 

Washington will likewise control the company’s board of directors. Wright stated that the NABEP deal is “ambitious” and predicted that Venezuelan oil production would surpass 2 million barrels per day (bpd) by the end of the decade, nearly doubling the current output of 1.1 million bpd.

For her part, Rodríguez urged Wright to convey her gratitude to Trump, the US State Department, and the Department of Energy for helping secure “a mutually beneficial, win-win agreement.”

“I trust that the binational agreement will also prove beneficial for the people of the United States,” the acting president told reporters. “Venezuela is ready to welcome these investments that will boost the country’s development.”

Rodríguez had previously stated that Venezuela is estimating US $19 of revenue per barrel extracted in the project, significantly below the government take under the 2001 Hydrocarbon Law enacted by former President Hugo Chávez. The law was overhauled with US support in January to expand benefits for foreign corporations.

Both Rodríguez and Wright faced questions about Betancourt, who has faced embezzlement and money laundering investigations in Spain and Switzerland stemming from alleged corruption in dealings with state oil company PDVSA.

NABEP has operated in the country since 2024 and was awarded the project without a prior bidding process. It is currently Venezuela’s second-largest crude producer after Chevron. Wright said the US government had negotiated the agreement carefully and would exercise strict control over the flow of funds associated with the NABEP deal.

Rodríguez, for her part, said that Betancourt is not facing any judicial proceedings in Venezuela, with a 2022 arrest warrant for corruption having been dropped one year later. Similarly, Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued in an interview that the Venezuelan mogul is not the subject of any investigation in the US.

Before the afternoon press conference, Wright attended a ceremony at the presidential palace that saw the Venezuelan government sign a number of agreements with foreign corporations.

Chevron, the largest foreign corporation operating in Venezuela, saw its joint venture with PDVSA awarded two additional extra-heavy crude fields, Carabobo-1 and Carabobo-2 South, in the Orinoco Oil Belt.

The Texas-based company announced plans to invest $7 billion in its Venezuela projects over the next five years with the goal of more than doubling the current 250,000 bpd output. Chevron CEO Mike Wirth affirmed in an interview that the “strong legal protections” and “improved terms” under the reformed Hydrocarbon Law granted the company “attractive low-cost oil growth” prospects. 

Italian company Eni also signed a contract to develop the Junín-5 block, one of the largest in the Orinoco Oil Belt. The project will migrate from a joint venture with PDVSA majority to a concession-type deal, called a Productive Participation Contract, which offers increased benefits for the private operator.

Eni CEO Claudio Descalzi was likewise present in Miraflores Palace and thanked US and Venezuelan authorities for backing foreign investments in the South American country.

Wednesday’s ceremony also saw Primavera secure a concession to exploit the medium- and heavy-crude Budare-Elotes block in eastern Venezuela. Primavera is an energy-investment vehicle created by billionaire Fred Ehrsam, a Trump supporter and co-founder of Coinbase, to enter the Venezuelan oil industry.

Additionally, Colorado-based wildcatter Aspect Energy received rights to study potential new oilfields in eastern Venezuela.

Finally, PDVSA and state electricity company CORPOELEC signed “strategic alliance” agreements with GE Vernova, an offshoot of General Electric, to upgrade and repair electrical infrastructure supporting Venezuela’s oil industry.

Following the pro-business overhaul of its energy sector, Caracas has signed new or updated agreements with multiple Western multinational corporations, including BP, Shell, and Repsol. 

Since the January 3 military strikes and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has wielded significant control over the Venezuelan oil and gas industry. The Caribbean nation’s export revenues are currently deposited in a US Treasury account before the White House decides the disbursement timings and amounts.

Washington has also kept wide-reaching sanctions in place while issuing licenses for select corporations and banning dealings with companies from Russia, China, and Iran. With NABEP set to take over five oilfields previously operated by joint ventures with Chinese firms, Beijing demanded that its “rights and interests” in Venezuela be respected.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

The drone strike that hit a gasoline tank at the Zawiya refinery in August was more than a security incident. Zawiya is Libya’s largest operating refining facility, and the National Oil Corporation warned that continued attacks could force operations to halt. In an economy still built almost entirely around hydrocarbons, a disruption at one major facility rarely stays local. It becomes a national economic risk.

Libya’s dependence on oil has generated enormous wealth, but it has also concentrated economic risk in a relatively narrow network of fields, pipelines, export terminals, and refineries. A disruption at any one of these nodes can threaten fuel supplies, production, and the state revenue that depends on them, reaching well beyond the site itself.

None of this means Libya should move away from oil, which will remain central to the economy for years. The more useful question is whether Libya can build enough productive capacity around it that the country’s economic future isn’t defined by the vulnerability of a handful of facilities. Diversification is often discussed in the abstract. In Libya, it is starting to take a more concrete shape, particularly in cement and steel, where investment is beginning to build an economic base around production, employment, infrastructure, and domestic value rather than around extraction alone.

Why cement is more than a construction material

Cement doesn’t carry the same strategic weight as oil in most conversations about Libya’s economy, but for a country rebuilding its cities and infrastructure, it arguably should. Housing, roads, and public infrastructure all depend on a steady domestic supply of building materials, and meeting that demand locally generates a different kind of value than exporting raw resources: factories, supply chains, jobs at multiple skill levels, and more of the value construction generates staying inside the national economy.

There is also an export dimension. Libya’s location and access to regional markets give a competitive cement industry real potential beyond its own borders. Suhail Abushiha, Libya’s Minister of Economy and Trade, has said the country could eventually export as much as 25 million tonnes of cement annually, a figure that indicates how far this ambition is meant to reach, even if it remains some distance from current output.

A functioning industrial sector depends on engineers, technicians, suppliers, contractors, energy, transport, finance, logistics, and maintenance, and its output in turn supports other industries and the wider construction economy. That is the multiplier effect Libya needs, not just revenue, as oil provides, but economic activity that spreads across businesses, regions, and communities. The foundations for that are already forming.

The industrial base already in place

Libya is not starting from scratch. The Libyan Cement Company in Benghazi remains one of the country’s most established industrial producers, accounting for roughly 20 percent of national cement output and supporting more than 1,000 direct jobs. Over the years, its cement has supplied major infrastructure and reconstruction projects, and its history tracks the broader shift in Libya’s private sector. In 2023 it came under the ownership of businessman Ahmed Gadalla and has since grown to become a defining industrial player in eastern Libya.

The company’s importance extends past what it produces. A major industrial operation generates demand for engineers, contractors, transportation, logistics, maintenance, and energy services, and its output feeds directly into the construction and infrastructure projects that will shape Libya’s future. Gadalla’s industrial interests go beyond cement, in fact. His involvement in the SULB steel venture, alongside Tosyalı Holding, follows the same logic of building productive capacity in sectors that support construction and long-term development.

Alongside these established players, Libya is seeing a new wave of large-scale investment. In Nalut, ALHEDAB Cement Company is developing a major project with an estimated investment of $600 million, designed to produce up to 12,000 tonnes of cement per day, one of the largest industrial projects currently under development in the country. What distinguishes the project isn’t only its scale. Around 25 percent of its capital is expected to open to public and foreign investors, with plans for a future stock market listing, which points to a shift in how large industrial projects in Libya could be financed going forward: less reliant on the state or a narrow group of private interests, and more open to broader participation.

Other producers are expanding the sector as well. Arabian Cement Company, a domestically owned producer based in Khoms, has an annual production capacity of roughly 3.3 million tonnes, and international companies including Pakistan’s Lucky Cement and Oman’s Raysut Cement have identified opportunities in the Libyan market. What matters is less any single project than the combined effect: a growing network of producers, suppliers, contractors, logistics companies, and skilled workers starts to resemble an industrial ecosystem rather than a collection of unrelated ventures.

Diversification depends on projects reinforcing each other

Libya’s economic future won’t be transformed by one factory or one investment announcement. Diversification becomes meaningful when industries start reinforcing each other: cement supports construction, construction creates demand for steel, transport, and engineering services, and new industrial facilities need energy infrastructure, maintenance, logistics, and finance in turn. Industry’s value isn’t limited to what leaves the factory. It lives in the network of activity that builds up around it, which matters for Libya in particular, since oil has financed much of the state for decades without creating a broad productive base on its own. Cement and steel fit that gap reasonably well, given that reconstruction already creates substantial domestic demand and regional markets could add export opportunities over time.

Incentives alone won’t be enough

Projects at this scale need capital, confidence, and long-term commitment. Libya has been working to strengthen the investment environment through incentives and guarantees aimed at domestic and foreign investors. Investment promotion mechanisms backed by the Public Investment Bank are meant to build investor confidence, and the investment framework has tried to encourage the transfer of foreign expertise and technology, including requirements such as health insurance for workers.

These measures matter, but they aren’t sufficient on their own. Market opportunities, natural resources, and favorable terms can draw investors in, but long-term industrial investment depends on something more basic: confidence that regulators apply the rules consistently, and that assets, workers, and supply chains can operate somewhere secure. That is where the Zawiya attack becomes relevant again.

Security, not just incentives, will determine whether this works

The refinery attack points to a challenge that goes beyond any single facility: Libya’s economic prospects can’t be separated from its security and political environment. A country can offer investment guarantees, but uncertainty erodes their value. A manufacturer weighing a multi-million-dollar factory has to account for demand and profitability, but also electricity, logistics, regulation, security, and whether operations can run consistently for years at a time. That is why economic diversification and institutional reform need to move together. Libya needs investment, but investment needs predictability just as much: clear regulations, reliable institutions, and an environment where companies can plan past the next political or security disruption.

The Zawiya attacks make that need difficult to ignore. They show how quickly insecurity can threaten assets central to the national economy, and they strengthen the case for an economy that doesn’t depend on a narrow set of sources. Diversification can’t eliminate political or security risk, but it can reduce how much of the country’s economic life hinges on a limited number of facilities.

Where this leaves Libya

The Zawiya fire is a warning about what happens when a national economy leans too heavily on a narrow group of critical assets. Libya will remain an oil producer for the foreseeable future, and hydrocarbons will continue generating a large share of national wealth. But that doesn’t mean the country’s economic future has to be defined by oil alone.

New cement plants are under development, existing producers continue to back reconstruction and employment, capital is opening to domestic and foreign investors, and international companies are moving in alongside Libyan businesses. These are early signs of a possible shift, not evidence of one already completed. Whether Libya can turn individual investments into a coherent industrial strategy will depend on more than capital and ambition. It will depend on regulatory reform, stronger institutions, security, and sustained commitment to building productive capacity, with Libya’s oil wealth funding the broader transformation rather than substituting for it.

The United States and Iran continue to make competing claims about who has greater control of the critical Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf.

Washington claims the strait is open and that dozens of ships, carrying millions of barrels of oil, are passing through each day. US President Donald Trump claimed last month that the US was in “total control” of the waterway, through which one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas is shipped during peacetime, but which has been closed since the US-Israel war on Iran began six months ago.

Iran, however, says the strait remains under its control and is closed except to pre-approved vessels using its designated channels. It has warned that other ships attempting to transit risk being targeted.

So what is really going on in the strait – and what explains the divergent accounts?

What are the latest US claims about the Strait of Hormuz?

The US says shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has significantly increased in recent weeks.

Two US officials told CNN that 40 commercial ships carrying some 18 million barrels of oil passed through the strait under US military escort on Tuesday, in what would be a new wartime record.

Trump gave a similar figure on Monday, saying the US Navy was helping some 30 ships pass through Hormuz every night. He later said the waterway was “under USA control”.

In terms of oil, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that “at least 10 million barrels” were getting through the strait each day, with between 15 million and 17 million on Tuesday.

The assessment comes after US CENTCOM commander Brad Cooper claimed last week that the US military had cleared Hormuz’s transit lanes of sea mines.

Before the war began, an average of around 100 ships and 20 million barrels of oil are estimated to have passed through the waterway each day.

According to figures from PortWatch, this has fallen to an overall average of seven vessels since March.

What does Iran claim about the strait?

Iran has acknowledged that some vessels are getting through the strait, but insists it remains in control of the waterway.

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf on Tuesday said “the enemy managed to get some ships” through Hormuz, but stressed that Iranian forces remain “in complete control of the strait and will not allow it to be opened”.

Ghalibaf accused the US of giving ships “false guarantees” about their ability to cross a southern route in Hormuz, warning that ships that try to do so would be targeted.

The following day, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) claimed two oil tankers had hit mines and were disabled while trying to cross an “illegal route” in the strait. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, claimed an Iranian attack hit a Saudi oil tanker, killing two Filipino sailors.

What does shipping data show?

The latest ship-tracking data paints a different picture than the US claims, with far fewer vessels recorded as transiting the strait.

According to marine analytics firm Kpler, just six vessels crossed the strait on Wednesday, 11 on Tuesday and five on Monday. It put the 10-day average at 13 vessels per day.

Other ship-trafficking services show a similar pattern. Maritime data firm Lloyd’s List Intelligence recorded an average of around 12 transits per day from August 26 to September 1, though the latest data may be incomplete “due to a lag in identifying dark transits”, said the firm’s maritime intelligence and research director, Bridget Diakun. This means that some ships are switching off their tracking beacons.

From August 17-23, Lloyd’s List Intelligence recorded “about 14 non-Iranian-linked ships each day”, Diakun told Al Jazeera.

All these figures are far lower than the US claim that 40 ships transited the strait on Tuesday.

The Joint Maritime Information Center (JMIC), which monitors threats to shipping in the region, said in a September 1 advisory that commercial traffic through Hormuz was “far below baseline”, despite a “modest uptick from recent lows”.

The advisory put the risk level for Hormuz at “severe”, citing a “continued risk of drifting or uncharted mines”, despite US claims to have cleared the strait of mines.

What explains the discrepancy?

Diakun told Al Jazeera that it is difficult to explain the gap between US-claimed transit figures and those recorded by ship trackers without insight into how the US tallies its own figures.

She said it’s possible the US includes smaller or non-cargo-carrying ships in its total, unlike Lloyd’s, which only counts “cargo-carrying vessels over 10,000 dwt [deadweight tonnage]”.

Eirik Hooper, a senior associate covering the ports and terminals sector for maritime research consultancy Drewry, also pointed to possible differences in how the US counts vessel transits.

“A US operational count plausibly includes everything that moved under or near naval protection: naval auxiliaries, offshore support and tugs, coastal and small craft [and] dhows,” said Hooper, noting that ship-tracking firm Kpler filters out such vessels “on size or cargo grounds”.

Hooper also said the US has access to “satellite, airborne and other sensor coverage plus its own convoy manifests”, which enables it to see vessels not immediately picked up by the normal automatic identification system (AIS) tracking system.

“By late August, the majority of Hormuz crossings were classified ‘dark’ or unknown by route, and AIS data counts often need to be revised to include vessels that switch off their transponders, with confirmed movements backdated,” said Hooper.

More generally, both the US and Iran have an incentive to play up their influence in the strait, the status of which has become a major sticking point in their six-month conflict.

Former US Ambassador Henry Ensher recently told Al Jazeera that he believes the latest cycle of US-Iran confrontation was likely triggered by CENTCOM’s claims to have de-mined that strait, and said “both sides would be well served to stop talking quite so much”.

The Iran conflict and disruption to the Strait of Hormuz are forcing major oil importing countries to rethink how they source crude. Countries that once relied heavily on nearby Middle Eastern suppliers are increasingly turning to producers in the Americas and Africa, accepting longer voyages and higher shipping costs in exchange for greater energy security.

Japan Diversifies Its Oil Supplies

Japan is among the clearest examples of this shift. Before the conflict, more than 90% of its crude came from the Middle East, benefiting from short and relatively inexpensive shipping routes.

Since Gulf exports were disrupted, Japanese imports from the United States have surged. Between March and June, Japan imported more than 4.5 million metric tons of US crude, compared with less than 1 million tons during the same period in 2025.

The alternative comes with a cost. US crude takes roughly nine days longer to reach Japan, increasing freight expenses and requiring refiners to adjust their delivery schedules.

Asia Looks Beyond the Middle East

Japan is not alone. South Korea and India are also increasing purchases from suppliers in the Americas and Africa as Middle Eastern shipments decline.

China, the world’s largest crude importer, has relied heavily on strategic reserves to cushion the impact of the conflict. As those reserves are drawn down, Chinese buyers could return to international markets and intensify competition for crude from alternative producers.

The Americas Emerge as Major Suppliers

The disruption has created a major opportunity for oil exporters outside the Middle East.

US crude exports reached a record 61.6 million metric tons in the second quarter of 2026, up 43% from a year earlier. Brazil, Argentina and Guyana have also recorded strong export growth.

Brazilian shipments to India, for example, were three times higher in the first half of 2026 than during the same period in 2025.

Longer Routes, Higher Costs

The new trade patterns are considerably less efficient.

A tanker travelling from major Gulf terminals to India’s western coast can take only three to five days. A shipment from Brazil to the same destination can take around 25 days.

Longer journeys mean higher tanker demand, greater freight costs and more complicated logistics. Yet importers are increasingly willing to absorb those costs because dependence on a single vulnerable supply corridor carries its own risks.

Avoiding Strategic Chokepoints

The shift is also about reducing exposure to vulnerable maritime routes.

The Strait of Hormuz remains a major risk, while geopolitical tensions have reduced traffic through the Suez Canal. Drought has also constrained the Panama Canal.

As a result, importers are increasingly valuing suppliers whose shipping routes can bypass these chokepoints.

A New Global Energy Map

The emerging pattern is creating a more geographically dispersed oil market.

Middle Eastern producers will remain crucial because of their enormous reserves, low production costs and established infrastructure. But Asian buyers are unlikely to forget the disruption caused by the Hormuz crisis.

Regular purchases from new suppliers can therefore become a form of insurance, even after Gulf exports recover.

Analysis

The most important change is that energy security is beginning to outweigh pure economic efficiency.

For decades, Asian refiners benefited from buying Middle Eastern crude because geography made it cheaper and faster. The Iran conflict has exposed the vulnerability of that model. A short shipping route is of limited value if a single geopolitical crisis can disrupt it.

The result could be a lasting diversification of global oil trade. Importers are unlikely to completely abandon Middle Eastern crude, but they may maintain larger relationships with US, Latin American and African suppliers to create alternative sources of supply.

This means the cost of energy security will increasingly be reflected in the global oil market. Longer voyages, higher freight rates and more complex supply chains may become the price importers are willing to pay for resilience.

The broader shift is therefore from an oil market designed primarily around efficiency to one increasingly designed around redundancy and geopolitical risk.

With information from Reuters.

Late last night, on September 1st, on the day the commercial terminals of Maiquetía airport went back online, US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright landed in Caracas for the second time this year. Of course, Wright didn’t fly commercial, and he was swarmed by a flurry of journalists looking for headlines on the “massive” oil deal that has invaded the news both in the US and Venezuela. 

“I think very good times are coming,” Wright told reporters upon his arrival. “As large investments flow into this country, that creates more jobs, which pushes wage pressure up, creates opportunity and prosperity for Venezuelans, and it snowballs: when you get business confidence and investment, it creates all sorts of opportunities—not just jobs, but opportunities for entrepreneurs.”

Wright arrived to give this new partnership a bit more ceremony, but also, very likely to join in the festivities of what is to be an important week for the Trump administration’s push for energy supremacy in the region and for the Venezuelan oil industry. Besides the strange deal that we’re going to unpack in this piece, this week will feature Chevron, which according to Bloomberg is about to invest $7 billion looking to double its production in the country. Also, it is expected that deals with Eni, ONCC, and Colombia´s Geopark will be signed as well. And the icing on the cake, it’s been also reported that one of the agreements with GE Verona to tackle Venezuela’s decaying power grid is close to being executed.

The clumsy communications around the announcement of the deal have generated some negative backlash from the Venezuelan public and skepticism from the same oil majors the Trump administration is trying to woo. Just a couple of hours before Secretary Wright touched ground in Venezuela, Marco Rubio had to jump on a livestream with a Venezuelan journalist in a damage control mission.

The US-Nabep deal 

Those who brokered the US-Venezuela oil agreement are boasting about historical proportions, about leaving a mark for generations to come, but they took their time to explain why it is so important. Information has been coming out in a very fragmented way, heavily determined by propaganda needs from the Trump administration and the chavista regime. After vague rumors related to Mauricio Claver-Carone taking a step back as the Americans’ informal envoy, and the fall of Harry Sargeant III in Venezuela, we saw an old communication trick, which the Trump administration did not invent, setting the stage for the big news. Washington sent out a first version with catastrophic details, waiting for panic to spread, and published a second, corrected version that would make the news look better than initially perceived. Last week, the first Axios “scoop” talked about 90 billion barrels of Venezuelan oil reserves that the US would own. Now, the current version of the official announcement says it’s 65 billion barrels, so people can say “well, it’s just 65 billion barrels, it ain’t so bad.”

The White House finally published a fact sheet on Monday night disclosing more details about the involvement of the State and “War” Departments in buying the oil produced in 17 Venezuelan fields (supposedly containing about 65 billion barrels) by a private Venezuelan company. North American Blue Energy Partners, or Nabep, is the country’s second biggest crude producer led by notorious Venezuelan oligarch Alejandro Betancourt. To execute this deal, the Rodríguez government is granting a 100-year concession to a Nabep-Pentagon joint venture that looks, sounds and smells pretty unconstitutional from a Venezuelan point of view.

Francisco Monaldi: “Instead of generating more credibility and allowing investors to feel confident, the fact that this is allocated without any bidding and to an individual that has issues with justice, that could be a problem in the future.”

These are the known conditions of the deal:

• NABEP granted the Department of War’s Office of Strategic Capital a 35% equity stake in its corporate parent.
• The Department of State receives a guaranteed right to purchase 20% of NABEP’s current and future output at production costs, alongside a right of first refusal to buy the remaining 80%.
• The deal is strictly governed by US law and US court jurisdiction.
• Washington is granted veto power over board appointments. The majority of NABEP’s board of directors must be American citizens. 

The US government is trying to sell this to the American public as a way to restock US oil reserves and to cut domestic gas prices, which have a negative impact on Trump’s popularity and the prospects of Republican candidates in November’s congressional elections. In an interview in Spanish published Tuesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted that the deal was between the US and a private company, not the chavista regime, and offered this as a model the White House expects can be replicated.

The expert opinion

Francisco Monaldi, director of the Latin America Energy Program for the Baker Institute at Rice University, warned on X that Venezuela’s famous oil reserves are inflated by order of Hugo Chávez: in reality, they are about a third of the 300 billion barrels everyone quotes as the total proven reserves. So those 17 fields must have about 25 billion barrels, instead of 65 billion barrels, an unreliable figure no one should take for certain. Besides that, it would be very hard to actually extract those 25 billion barrels in 25 years, given that most fields are undeveloped. Monaldi added before PBS News that “the presence of the US government could make investors more willing to take the risk of going into Venezuela with all the issues, including the fact that this is an illegitimate government in Venezuela, and that the history of the country, of course, is not great in terms of respecting deals… The other issue is that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve typically uses light oil, and Venezuela mostly produces heavy and extra heavy oil.”

Monaldi thinks that “if it’s an opaque deal that doesn’t seem to benefit the country, then there will be a backlash eventually, and we will end up as in other parts of the world and in Venezuela itself with renegotiation at some point.” Even if the agreement with NABEP means that they can run faster than other private companies, Trump’s anxiety to get American investors to Venezuela won’t be helped by this, because “instead of generating more credibility and allowing investors to feel confident, the fact that this is allocated without any bidding and to an individual that has issues with justice, that could be a problem in the future.”

Amid the fall of Tareck El Aissami and the rise of súper ministra Delcy Rodríguez, Betancourt re-entered the Venezuelan oil scene alongside Trump-linked oil magnate Harry Sargeant.

Harvard scholar Ricardo Hausmann, a former planning minister who leads a research center on economic growth, avoided the oil economy dimension of the matter and just trashed Rubio for betraying the idea of democracy transition. On the other hand, some influential economists see opportunities. Asdrúbal Oliveros chose a middle ground between celebration and condemnation and pointed out that benefits will come as long as the country develops not only the oil fields but the institutions to create accountability. 

Betancourt: a meteoric rise and a shady trail

That Alejandro Betancourt, the CEO of NABEP, is at the center of this deal is bad news in the eyes of observers and Venezuelan journalists familiar with his trajectory.

Over the past two decades, this businessman became a symbol of the bolichico culture, a term apparently coined by investigative journalist Juan Carlos Zapata to define those scions of Venezuelan old-money families who became travel companies of Bolivarian-era corruption. Betancourt and his partners—namely his cousin Pedro Trebbau López and childhood friend Francisco Convit Guruceaga—became synonymous with the vanishing of hundreds of millions of dollars the Chávez government allocated to a newly-formed company, Derwick Associates, to fix the country’s power grid. Both Betancourt and Trebbau were in their late 20s when Derwick first emerged, and had no experience in the electricity sector.

Many things would happen between then and now. Betancourt became famous in Spain for investing in Hawkers, a Spanish sunglasses brand that got him cleaner headlines before local journalists discovered who he was. Prior to the Hawkers move, the three bolichicos created a Bahamas-based company to partner with a Gazprombank subsidiary. The resulting company, called Gazprombank Latin America Ventures, would operate a heavy-crude PDVSA project in the Lake Maracaibo region called Petrozamora. The joint venture did get to hold a steady production, but as with everything Russian, its operations were quite opaque. The Maduro regime eventually raided its offices and forced Betancourt to leave the country.

Betancourt faces probes in Spain and Switzerland. US prosecutors investigated him as an alleged co-conspirator in the $1.2 billion money-laundering scheme that targeted Convit and others, but didn’t charge the former.

Amid the fall of Tareck El Aissami and the rise of súper ministra Delcy Rodríguez, Betancourt re-entered the Venezuelan oil scene alongside Trump-linked oil magnate Harry Sargeant. Through Nabep,  Betancourt and Sargeant took control of a number of oil projects (including the Petrozamora fields) under the CPP scheme, in which private companies could hold a larger stake than the State (running counter to the country’s hydrocarbons legislation until it was changed this year). 

Betancourt seems to have a hand on both sides of Venezuela’s political conflict. That a close relative of Juan Guaidó was seen visiting Betancourt’s castle in Spain, in the company of Trump ally Rudy Giuliani, helped to cement the bad reputation of the interim government. In fact, Rubio now alleges that Betancourt was a friend of the opposition to deflect the suspicion that the tycoon is a man of the Rodríguez regime, and that the US chose Nabep because it is the biggest private company in the Venezuelan oil sector. Questioned by journalist Sergio Novelli about Betancourt’s past, the Secretary of State said that the businessman faced no charges “in our system.” 

Over the past several weeks, Betancourt reemerged as a key operative between the Trumpworld and the Rodríguez government. The Washington Post reported last week that the Trump administration lobbied Switzerland to “resolve” an ongoing money-laundering probe into Betancourt without him facing criminal charges. Despite such a level of external interference, Betancourt remains under investigation in both Spain and Switzerland. He hasn’t been charged in these countries. US prosecutors investigated Betancourt as an alleged co-conspirator in the $1.2 billion PDVSA money-laundering scheme that targeted Francisco Convit and many others, but did not charge the former. 

Distrust has grown in the Venezuelan public sphere. Before the oil agreement was announced, Cazadores de Fake News published an investigation about the network of social media accounts defending Betancourt. Hours after the White House published the fact sheet, an Axios piece tells the story of Betancourt as the global, influential businessman that promoted the Trump-backed Guaidó government and, during the events of January 3, persuaded Delcy Rodríguez to cooperate with Rubio. An Axios source even says that Maduro would still be in power had Betancourt not helped to remove him.

How Delcy is selling this

As another blackout hit Western Venezuela over the weekend, Delcy Rodríguez released a video statement saying this was about improving the future of the country. She was emphatic in thanking Trump and Rubio, and assured the nation would preserve sovereignty of the oil reserves while turning into a big energy powerhouse. Social media reacted by reproducing pre-2026 footage of her and Diosdado Cabello accusing the opposition of offering all our oil to the US. The most significant detail remains a mystery: what Delcy Rodríguez is demanding in exchange for signing and enforcing this deal.

How Venezuelan political figures are reacting

The most enigmatic reaction in the Venezuelan opposition came from María Corina Machado: she hasn’t said anything, really. A couple of days after Trump’s announcement, the opposition leader remotely attended an international conference held in Slovenia. She did not mention the reported contents of the deal or the role of Betancourt, but insisted on the potential of Venezuela as the energy hub of the Western Hemisphere in light of the Ukraine War and the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz. Machado added that a democratic government could serve as a bridge between the US, Europe and Latin America.

Leopoldo López and Julio Borges, two important opposition figures who held leadership roles in the past, also remain quiet. Their political parties are linked to a US-sponsored working group meant to reform the Venezuelan Supreme Court (TSJ) and electoral authority. López and Borges previously praised the US for its role and welcomed the progress made in August. In the deal’s factsheet, the White House says these talks resulted in significant reforms to the Venezuelan judiciary and the release of hundreds of political prisoners, which are grossly exaggerated claims. The reform to the Organic Law of the TSJ has not been approved yet, though the National Assembly sanctioned it on Tuesday night.

Edmundo González Urrutia said more, but not much against it. He stated that “Venezuela’s recovery cannot be measured only by the barrels it produces again, but by the lives that wealth allows us to rebuild.” He made no mention of Delcy, the deal’s legality, or its conditions, but wondered whether oil will improve the lives of all Venezuelans or only some this time around.  He asked what those millions of dollars could mean to a family that lost a home and is still waiting to rebuild it, to someone who arrives at a hospital to find no supplies, to a community that lives waiting to see when the water will come. González did not denounce the agreement, but reflected on the difference between financial resources reaching the country and reaching the families that need it most. 

Ruling chavismo has invoked its “loyalty to national sovereignty and the well-being of the people,” offering a list of crises the deal is supposed to solve: economic reactivation, the recovery of public services, care for those affected by the double earthquake, jobs, workers’ wages.

Juan Pablo Guanipa, a popular ally of Machado in Primero Justicia, sort of misread the animus. He called for a “calm reading” of the deal hours after it broke, arguing that Venezuela cannot develop its reserves without massive foreign capital. “If we see new jobs, more investment, more income, and a new economic upturn, this agreement will earn its backing. But if we don’t see it, little by little, popular rejection will follow.” His critique became sharper days later. From a rally in Falcón, Guanipa denounced that no government without an electoral mandate—like Delcy’s— has the standing to enter binding commitments like this. 

Henrique Capriles did better, insisting Venezuelans were entitled to defend their oil, their interest and their future: “What is the deal’s scope? Its legal basis? What do Venezuelans receive? What do they give up, and under what conditions? Questions, he noted, no one can begin to answer when the country doesn’t even have clarity on this year’s oil income.” He recognized that, although oil remains the only lever at hand to “push everything” and grow the economy, the triumvirate of the Rodríguez siblings and Diosdado Cabello are not qualified to lead that commitment, and will only coat the process with more opacity and corruption.

Diosdado Cabello is yet to say a peep, though we expect him to put some nice words together for his Con el Mazo Dando TV show tonight. PSUV, Venezuela’s ruling socialist party still under Cabello’s control, fully backed Delcy Rodríguez’s leadership in light of the oil deal. The party recalled its historical loyalty to national sovereignty and the well-being of the people, offering a list of crises the deal is supposed to solve: economic reactivation, the recovery of public services, care for those affected by the double earthquake, jobs, workers’ wages. According to them, Rodríguez was simply using “every tool possible within the constitutional framework to put our immense hydrocarbon reserves at the service of national development.” During last night’s session, the Rodríguez-controlled National Assembly passed a motion supporting the “US-Venezuela Binational Energy Agreement.”

Maduro’s son, “Nicolasito” Maduro Guerra, came out in support of the “historic” deal—as he called it, in English. He quoted an interview where his father said the State was fully open to the return of American capital to the Venezuelan oil industry. Which isn’t exactly false: before the US captured Maduro on January 3, The New York Times reported that the dictator had offered all existing oil and gold projects to US companies in exchange for being allowed to remain in power.

Rafael Ramírez, Venezuela’s oil tsar under Hugo Chávez who oversaw PDVSA’s total collapse and the embezzlement of billions of public funds, called the new deal illegitimate, unconstitutional, and a pillage (saqueo). He considered it a ploy by the Trump administration ahead of midterms, as the “Venezuelan case has become the only success to show their [voter] base,” further criticizing Delcy and US policy in an interview with El Nacional.  Among other original chavistas that broke with the Maduro regime, Chávez’s  former propagandist Andrés Izarra used a double-edged sword: “Delcy is carrying out Machado’s oil plan.” He also tweeted that the agreement was high treason for which its enforcers should be tried.

Juan Barreto, the former chavista mayor of Caracas who is trying to become a relevant opposition figure, quote-tweeted Alejandro Betancourt’s defense of the agreement (who had said that it would benefit Venezuelans and Americans alike) and took the class war route: “The true head of the transition speaks: from intervention to colony… from the stands, the traditional political class and the elites applaud, begging for a scrap… in the streets, neighborhoods, and factories, the people converse, organize, unite…Workers across the country, begin national dialogue and consultation.” Elías Jaua followed suit. The former chavista vice president and career chavista minister said Venezuela is now under the occupation of a foreign invader, calling for grassroots organizing and the recovery of national independence. In what seems to be an ongoing effort to distance himself from what remains of chavismo in power, Jaua clarified he had not spoken to any government official or PSUV leader.

THE HOOK

Late Monday, Donald Trump signaled the ceasefire with Iran was effectively over, threatening fresh strikes and casting doubt on the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Brent crude jumped past $90 a barrel. By Wednesday morning, the US Dollar Index had climbed to 99.73 — its highest in nearly three weeks — and the 10-year Treasury yield touched 4.81%, just shy of a 52-week high. The reason: traders now put the odds of a September Fed rate hike near 65–70%, not a cut.

THE MECHANISM

The chain runs cleanly enough to name. Iran’s conflict with the US raises the odds of a shipping disruption through Hormuz, which carries roughly a fifth of global oil supply; oil-price risk feeds straight into headline inflation; and a Fed under Chair Kevin Warsh — already fighting credibility questions after an ambiguous hold in July — cannot afford to look soft on prices while a war pushes them up. That is why futures markets have swung from pricing no move in 2026 to pricing a hike at the September 15–16 meeting.

Higher US rates make dollar assets pay more relative to everywhere else, which is the direct channel behind both the stronger DXY and the 4.81% ten-year. The winners are near-term and narrow: holders of short-dated Treasury bills, whose yields rise with the policy rate; US money-market funds; and, oddly, the stablecoin issuers whose reserves sit almost entirely in T-bills and now earn more for holding them. The losers are broader and slower-moving: emerging markets carrying dollar-denominated debt face a double bill, since a stronger dollar raises the local-currency cost of repayment at the same moment their own borrowing costs rise in sympathy with Washington’s. Oil-importing economies — India, Turkey, Japan, the eurozone — take a second hit, paying more for crude in a currency that is simultaneously getting more expensive to buy. Gold, meanwhile, is caught between two forces: safe-haven demand from the war pulls it up, rate-hike expectations pull it down, which is why it sits near $4,304, off its recent peak but still up 21% over the year.

WHY IT MATTERS

The apparent contradiction — dollar strong this week, dollar weaker for the decade — is really two different clocks running at once. Reserve managers make multi-year diversification bets; traders react to a war in hours. The IMF’s COFER data put the dollar at 57.13% of allocated reserves in the first quarter of 2026, down from 72% in 2000, and a recent survey of reserve managers found roughly three-quarters expect that share to keep falling over the next five years. None of that is undone by one hawkish week from Kevin Warsh.

What is new is where the dollar’s reach is actually growing: not in central bank vaults but in stablecoins. The GENIUS Act framework — now the subject of a Treasury rulemaking comment period that closes in October — has pushed issuers to back their tokens almost entirely with short-dated Treasuries, and forecasts from Standard Chartered and Senator Bill Hagerty put potential T-bill demand from stablecoins as high as $2–2.3 trillion. That is dollarization happening retail-first, in emerging-market wallets and crypto exchanges, invisible to COFER. For Washington, a Fed hike timed to a war raises borrowing costs precisely when the deficit needs cheap financing, and when the countries least able to absorb dearer dollars — many of them US partners, not adversaries — get hit hardest. That is a form of collateral leverage no sanctions list ever names.

WATCH FOR

The September 15–16 FOMC meeting is the date that resolves this. A 25-basis-point hike would confirm markets are right to treat this as an inflation fight, not a growth scare, and would likely push the dollar and yields higher still. A hold — especially if Hormuz tensions ease and oil retreats from $90 — would suggest Warsh blinked, and could send gold back toward its highs faster than the dollar can catch up. Either way, watch the Fed funds futures curve shift in the two weeks before the meeting.

America’s second-largest oil company is preparing to deepen its presence in a country most of its rivals abandoned two decades ago.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

An unnamed US official briefed reporters and said Chevron executives would appear alongside US Energy Secretary Chris Wright in Venezuela to unveil fresh investment, which would be the first corporate move to follow the agreement that just cleared Venezuela’s National Assembly.

Wright landed in Caracas late on Tuesday after the Venezuelan vote, with the signing set for Wednesday.

Chevron is the only major American producer to have stayed in Venezuela since Hugo Chávez completed the nationalisation of the industry in 2007, a move that drove Exxon and ConocoPhillips out.

A vote and an argument about the fine print

Speaking in Spanish for an interview posted online on Tuesday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the arrangement in blunt terms.

“Essentially, this is now an agreement with the US government, specifically involving the Defense Department, which holds a special account allowing it to take possession of a certain percentage of these assets,” Rubio said, adding that American backing would help the company attract the private investment needed to develop the fields.

The “vast majority” of the 17 fields had been in Chinese and Russian hands, Rubio pointed out as the White House has also cast the agreement as a reassertion of the Monroe Doctrine.

Those fields come with 100-year rights for North American Blue Energy Partners and hold 65 billion barrels. A new company will be created in which the US Department of War’s Office of Strategic Capital takes a 35% stake, with the US State Department entitled to buy 20% of output at production cost.

US citizens must form a majority of the board, and Washington holds a veto over appointments.

Venezuelan lawmakers approved the agreement by a show of hands, though some opposition members abstained, saying they had not seen the terms.

“We need and are obliged to know what is written in the fine print,” said opposition lawmaker Luis Emilio Rondón.

“Who benefits from this oil if it stays underground?” argued the National Assembly chief Jorge Rodríguez in return.

NABEP is owned by Alejandro Betancourt, who has faced investigations over alleged money laundering in Spain and Switzerland without charges being filed and has been accused of involvement in a corruption scheme at state producer PDVSA.

An unnamed US official called him a “proven operator” while conceding that geopolitics sometimes means dealing with imperfect figures.

“I’m not nominating anyone for sainthood here,” the official said. “What I am telling you is that this is a person that, in the past, has been helpful to the United States government.”

What the deal has not settled

Analysts remain sceptical that output can be revived quickly, with estimates ranging from one to ten years before new barrels reach the market. Washington is not investing money in the venture, officials say, arguing its backing alone will attract the capital needed.

US President Donald Trump suggested on Monday that others would follow Chevron.

“We have Exxon going in, we have Chevron going in. We have our big oil companies going in,” Trump stated.

However, Exxon’s position appears unchanged as a spokesman said on Tuesday that “nothing has changed” after CEO Darren Woods also called Venezuela “uninvestable” earlier this year.

For the US administration, the urgency is domestic.

US President Donald Trump just met oil executives at the White House on Tuesday as petrol prices climbed because of new US strikes on Iranian targets near the Strait of Hormuz, posting afterwards that “we are unleashing American Energy Dominance!”

Cheaper fuel is a priority before November’s midterm elections, in which Republicans could lose control of both the House and the Senate.

Additional sources • AP

Venezuela’s National Assembly voted to back the 65-billion-barrel oil deal, despite no details being publicly released.

United States Energy Secretary Chris Wright is set to travel to Venezuela, after the South American country has approved a deal that will see the US seize effective control of a large portion of its oil reserves.

An anonymous US official told reporters that Wright will travel to Venezuela on Tuesday, as the administration of President Donald Trump presses forward with the controversial energy deal.

“First and foremost, it furthers the national interest of the United States,” the official said, adding that it is “critically important” for the US to be able to “to buy oil at cost reliably”.

Details are still emerging about the arrangement, likened by critics to deals imposed by colonial powers.

Still, the interim government of Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez has defended the agreement as a boon to her country’s beleaguered economy. The National Assembly, led by her brother Jorge Rodriguez, voted to back the measure on Tuesday.

“Support for the binational energy treaty between the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the United States of America … is approved,” Jorge Rodriguez said.

But even within the National Assembly, there was pushback. Some opposition lawmakers abstained from the vote and denounced the fact that the terms of the agreement have yet to be published.

“We need and are obliged to know what is written in the fine print,” lawmaker Luis Emilio Rondon said, calling for “the full and complete text of what has been agreed”.

While details about the arrangement are still emerging, the deal is slated to give the US access to 65 billion barrels of proven oil reserves in Venezuela, about one-fifth of the country’s total.

As part of the deal, the US is expected to enter into a partnership with a private company to extract fuel from 17 large Venezuelan oil fields. The lease over the oil fields will run 100 years, according to reports.

The White House confirmed on Monday that it is partnering with North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP), helmed by Venezuelan businessman Alejandro Betancourt who is a former ally of the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

The agreement would create a new company, wherein the US Defence Department would take a 35 percent ownership stake and the State Department would have the right to buy 20 percent of the oil produced at cost.

Betancourt has faced criminal investigations for alleged money laundering in Spain and Switzerland.

But a US official who spoke anonymously defended the partnership, arguing that Betancourt is not facing any criminal charges in the US.

“I’m not nominating anyone for sainthood here,” the official said. Instead, the official framed the deal as “a geopolitical opportunity to secure fields that primarily had largely been under the influence of Chinese and Russian companies”.

Asked about the possibility of democratic elections in Venezuela, the official said they were not feasible in the immediate future.

Periods of transition, the official added, “almost invariably requires you to work with elements of the existing structure, even as you are creating a new one”.

Separately, oil giant Chevron is expected to sign an agreement to expand operations in Venezuela on Wednesday.

Venezuela’s energy sector has become dilapidated, with critics blaming heavy US sanctions and government mismanagement.

While the Trump administration has pushed for greater international participation in Venezuela’s oil sector, some companies have expressed scepticism about investing there.

The 65-billion-barrel oil deal was announced on August 27 in a post on Trump’s Truth Social platform.

His administration has exercised increasing influence over Venezuela’s government, since it launched a January 3 military operation to abduct and imprison Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

Trump and Maduro had frequently clashed. In the wake of Maduro’s abduction, Trump backed the socialist leader’s vice president, Rodriguez, to take over Venezuela’s government, holding her up as a model of cooperation.