oil

In nearly simultaneous social media posts on August 28, Venezuela’s acting president, Delcy Rodríguez, and U.S. President Donald Trump announced a historic “Oil Agreement” between the U.S. and Venezuela.

According to Rodríguez, the agreement—the operational and legal details of which remain unknown—covers the development of 17 oil fields containing 65 billion barrels of proven reserves, with a projected investment of US $100 billion that would translate into more than $200 billion in taxes for the state, theoretically aimed at Venezuela’s social and economic recovery.

For his part, Trump presented the energy pact as a major economic and geopolitical victory for his administration, arguing that it was the “largest oil agreement in world history,” with the United States directly securing “majority control” over more than one-fifth of Venezuela’s proven hydrocarbon potential, which would allow it to “more than double U.S. oil reserves.”

A game of numbers that hides what matters

Due to the initial lack of transparency and the absence of specifics regarding timelines, the U.S. companies involved, and the operational terms, the announcement drew a largely negative reaction from the public, given that it marks a historic turning point both for the bilateral relationship between Washington and Caracas and for the economic and political future of the Caribbean nation, which has been structurally subject to the dictates and interests of the White House since the January 3 military attack.

The initial confusion was quickly followed by baseless speculation about potential royalties, whether the agreement is positive for national development, and future material benefits—with no clarity as to whether these will be so meager and symbolic as to be humiliating, or whether they will be somewhat acceptable within the context of an openly asymmetrical bilateral relationship that favors Washington’s agenda of plunder and geopolitical control.

But addressing those issues—without the agreement and its clauses in hand, and without knowledge of the initial contracts signed with U.S. companies—would leave us stuck in a labyrinth. In fact, the game of numbers surrounding still-fictitious revenues has mired the discussion in its early days, with statements in the media from the government, Chavismo, and sectors of the opposition defending their own positions based on how close or far they are from what Trump wants.

What the current technical and economic debate leaves out—and does not even consider—is far too important and decisive.

For example, the ambiguity surrounding the structure of the oil pact—rather than being an uncontrolled outcome—represents the very core of its design and is a symptom of close coordination regarding shared political calculations between the White House and Miraflores.

The absence of a treaty or a verifiable legal instrument shows that the announcement is part of a bilateral political agreement, framed as a strategic energy-focused commitment in which the two parties reinforce their narratives and smooth over tensions within their circles of power, influence, and target audiences.

Thanks to this jointly planned ambiguity, Trump and Rodríguez can put forward contradictory and divergent narratives without jeopardizing their alliance, while capitalizing on the momentum to shape narratives and thereby rally their support bases and internal coalitions.

This is the only way to explain why Trump insinuates that he directly controls Venezuelan reserves to soften the blow of the Iranian quagmire from which he cannot extricate himself, while Rodríguez contradicts him in a public address, in which she reaffirmed that her government has not relinquished ownership of its oil and that it has signed an agreement that is broadly beneficial and defining for the country’s economic future, leveraging U.S. capital and technology.

In this way, the White House tenant is trying to kill two birds with one stone: 1) undermine internal pressure within the Republican Party calling for the acting president’s head before the midterms; and 2) to incentivize oil companies to inject capital and invest heavily under the promise of lucrative returns in the medium and long term, using Caracas’s strategic alignment and the Pentagon’s participation as a shareholder in the oil exploration project as a hedge against risk.

On the other hand, Miraflores is also killing its own birds by exploiting the purely rhetorical nature of the bilateral pact. On the one hand, it downplays public criticism accusing it of handing over oil to the U.S. under regressive conditions—which imply a return, in an adapted form, to the humiliating concession model (leasing oil fields in exchange for a tax burden favorable to corporations) that defined the Washington-Caracas energy relationship for a third of the 20th century.

Furthermore, the Venezuelan government reinforces the narrative of economic recovery as its programmatic roadmap, with a structural strategy based on the assumption that the purported material benefits derived from preferential and advantageous trade with the U.S. will translate into political and social legitimacy through improved wages and public services—which could, through the careful management of numbers and expectations (at least that is the intention), eventually dissolve the political contradiction posed in terms of sovereignty.

The current picture is one of extreme uncertainty. The degree of confidence among oil companies remains to be seen in light of the danger that the agreement could be reversed after Trump leaves office in 2028, as well as the complexities that may arise when harmonizing contracts with the new Hydrocarbons Law passed in February of this year.

In short, the agreement is a high-risk joint maneuver in which Trump and Rodríguez definitively tie their political fates together, mutually benefiting from converging on a starkly transactional and profit-driven logic, blessed and endorsed by the otherworldly powers of the postwar God of Money: the US dollar.

The one-way trip into the unknown

From now on, Trump cannot overthrow Rodríguez if he wants to retain a lifeline in the face of the lost battle to control the Strait of Hormuz, which is under Iranian control; nor can the latter break free from the strategic alignment with Washington if she wishes to remain electorally competitive and survive as a political force—one that is currently accelerating a complex process of internal transformation, ideologically and programmatically, toward the orbit of the economy and results-oriented politics.

In the years to come, perhaps August 28, 2026, will be interpreted as the date on which, strangely enough, Venezuela returned to 1908—the year in which a triumphant Juan Vicente Gómez, having defeated Cipriano Castro (public enemy number one under the Roosevelt Corollary), laid the foundations of the modern Venezuelan state by applying a feudal-oil doctrine of “open arms” to Western companies, first British and, after the 1920s, primarily American.

But perhaps it will also be remembered as a turning point marked by elites who replaced politics and the republican vision with the courtship of an emperor obsessed with power.

The oil agreement may be materially beneficial for Venezuela; it may also, in fact, signal a return to the humiliating times of Gómez, whose rise to power, over a dying Castro—who lacked social support and was besieged by the U.S. empire—was encouraged, promoted, and later defended by a US establishment that was ecstatic over the adaptation of the Monroe Doctrine, led by Theodore Roosevelt who loved to quote the proverb: “Speak softly and carry a big stick….”

The agreement can rightly be called historic—a view on which Rodríguez and Trump fully agree. But not because of its technical and fiscal characteristics, but because, politically, it implies the harsh acceptance that Venezuela’s ruling elites have nothing more to offer the Caribbean nation than a lucrative oil deal for the U.S., tempered by the consolation that the revenue from extracted barrels will be enough to lift us out of the devastation caused by sanctions and economic mismanagement.

What this pact reveals is, precisely, the failure of the Venezuelan elites, who are now at such a point of weakness and lack of autonomy that the distinctions between adversaries and enemies across the political spectrum hinge on who is closest to Trump, who gets his backing and who gets to negotiate with him. Within this web—obscured by neutralizing technical language—the future of the Bolivarian Republic is being shaped, amid its bitter journey through an inverted pyramid of legitimacy that has transformed the head of the White House into the guiding force of the national landscape.

In the deep void left by technical narratives, reality operates at its actually existing vertices, with a war of narratives favoring the elites in their goal of reducing politics to administrative discussions of taxes and royalties, while simultaneously concealing the harsh truth of a nation that has lost control of its destiny—a destiny now decided in English and in the metropolis of the Trump empire.

Perhaps accepting the truth as it is may be a first step toward facing a future full of questions and doubts—ones that cannot be resolved through partisan slogans, unfulfilled promises, or narratives that erase history and its lessons.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

Translated by Venezuelanalysis.

Source: Diario Red

Sept. 1 (UPI) — Two oil tankers were struck by unknown projectiles on the Strait of Hormuz while the renewed fighting between Iran and the United States sends oil prices on the rise again.

One Saudi Arabian and one South Korean oil tanker were hit by projectiles within minutes of each other on Monday night, the UK Maritime Trade Operations Centre reported. The organization said no casualties or environmental impact have been reported.

The strikes followed President Donald Trump warning of further escalation in the war with Iran.

The United States launched strikes on Iranian troops in Larak Island on Sunday, causing Iran to retaliate with strikes on U.S. bases in Jordan. Trump said in a TV interview on Monday that he planned to respond by hitting Iran “hard.”

Dr. Majid Al-Ansari, spokesman for the Qatari Foreign Ministry, said on Tuesday that the nation will re-up its efforts to bring the United States and Iran back to the table to discuss a peace agreement.

“This escalation will not benefit anyone,” Al-Ansari said. “We are all affected by this escalation. Therefore we urge the parties, first, to exercise wisdom and return to the negotiating track, and we continue and intensify our efforts with our mediation partners to ensure a return to this track.”

Meanwhile, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Iran would be open to returning to peace talks if the United States moves in that direction.

Oil prices increased by 2% early Tuesday on the back of escalating conflict between the United States and Iran. Brent crude oil, the international benchmark, was up 2% to $92 per barrel while West Texas intermediate, the U.S. benchmark, was trading for $88 per barrel.

Aug. 31 (UPI) — Oil prices surged early Monday after fighting flared in the U.S.-Iran conflict for the first time in four weeks since U.S. President Donald Trump announced a “pause” in U.S. military strikes on Aug. 1.

The contract for the benchmark Brent crude for November delivery jumped by 3.4% to $91.09 a barrel and the October contract for American crude saw a similar-sized increase to $86.22 after U.S. forces hit rocket launchers on Larak Island in the Hormuz Strait on Sunday night and Iran’s military retaliated, targeting American bases in Jordan.

The hikes were driven by the renewed hostilities stoking fears ongoing supply disruption caused by a drastic curtailment of tankers traffic transiting the Strait of Hormuz would be made worse and persist for longer, according to experts.

“Supply risk will persist and oil inventories will continue to deplete in the coming weeks and months. The Iranian crisis has likely changed the security status quo in the Middle East,” said PVM Oil Associates’ London-based analyst Tamas Varga.

Investment bank Goldman Sachs, the impact of destructive attacks on refining capacity was responsible for upward pressure on margins.

“Rising strikes on refineries in the Middle East and Russia have further constrained already-stretched global refining capacity, pushing refined products margins to new highs,” the bank said in a note.

Prices at the pump in the United States on Monday remained broadly flat from the previous day, with the average price of a gallon of regular unleaded up 0.2 cents at 4.08 a gallon, and diesel down by a little over 0.3 cents at $5.60 a gallon, according to the American Automobile Association.

The developments came as the United States’ Strategic Petroleum Reserve has fallen to its lowest level since 1982.

President Trump said Sunday he would restock it with oil from his Venezuela deal giving the United States secure a stake in more than 65 billion barrels of oil despite the fact it could to produce take many years to before the agreements yields any significant volumes because the oil is reserves, as yet to be drilled.

The price of oil has seesawed over the past two weeks after rising in response to Trump’s Aug. 19 threat to wage a “crushing economic operation” against Iran that his officials said would cause the regime to collapse, and then retreating again in the hours before the mainly-sanctions package of measures were unveiled on Aug. 24.

Caracas, August 30, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez has defended an oil agreement that US President Donald Trump called “the biggest in history.”

“The historic agreement with the United States will have a great impact on Venezuelans’ lives in the long term,” she said in a televised broadcast on Saturday evening. “It is useless to have oil reserves underground. They should be turned into welfare and prosperity for our country.”

The acting president pledged that the deal would lead to “education and healthcare” improvements and contribute to “energy security” in the Western Hemisphere. She reiterated gratitude to Trump and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio for the agreement.

According to Rodríguez, the joint initiative will see undisclosed private operators take over 17 oilfields for 25 years. The fields in question contain 65 billion barrels of crude, a little over 20 percent of the country’s reserves.

She added that the project had a 1.5 million barrel per day (bpd) target. With prices estimated at $65, Venezuela would collect US $19 per barrel, totaling $209 billion over the course of the agreement.

However, the price estimates stand markedly below present and projected market values, while the state’s take is likewise significantly reduced. Under previous legislation, enacted by former President Hugo Chávez, the Venezuelan state collected over $0.75 for every dollar of oil extracted in the form of royalties, taxes, and dividends from state oil company PDVSA.

Furthermore, an average of $8.4 billion in yearly revenue for 1.5 million bpd produced also amounts to a much reduced share for the Caribbean nation. In 2025, with lower market prices and Venezuela forced to sell at a discount to circumvent US sanctions, the country collected a reported $18.4 billion from an average of 941,000 bpd produced.

Unofficial sources have published the 17 oilfields in question, with nine being extra-heavy crude projects, eight of them in the Orinoco Oil Belt. The remaining eight are reportedly mature light and medium crude fields in Western Venezuela.

For his part, Trump presented the agreement as a major foreign policy victory that would boost US energy security for decades. In a social media message on Sunday, Trump claimed he would use Venezuelan oil to “fill up the Strategic National Reserves,” calling the supply “a gift from Venezuela.”

Details on the US role in the agreement have yet to be disclosed, with Trump Energy Secretary Chris Wright expected in Caracas in the coming days.

According to AP, the US government will have an ownership stake in a company receiving 100-year rights to drill in the assigned oilfields. Washington would reportedly secure 55 percent of the output and be able to purchase oil at cost.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump administration plans to secure a 35 percent stake in North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP), a firm owned by Venezuelan oil mogul Alejandro Betancourt that currently operates multiple oil projects. The operation would be conducted by the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital through penny warrants that minimize capital investment.

Venezuelan and US officials have stated that the deal will attract $100 billion in private sector investment. Nevertheless, there has been no information released about the private actors involved.

Since the January 3 US military strikes and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores, the Trump administration has seized control over Venezuela’s energy sector. Washington has maintained wide-reaching sanctions in place while issuing licenses for select Western corporations. The US Treasury likewise manages Venezuela’s crude sale revenues, with the amounts and timings of the disbursements to Caracas left at the White House’s discretion.

The acting Rodríguez government has pushed a pro-business overhaul of its hydrocarbon law and regulations in coordination with US officials and corporate executives. In recent months, companies such as Chevron, BP, and Shell have struck new long-term oil and natural gas deals or renegotiated existing ones.

Popular movements call for ‘anti-imperialist resistance’

The announced agreement with the Trump administration has drawn significant criticism over its lack of transparency and implications for Venezuelan sovereignty.

Economist Francisco Rodríguez questioned whether the deal would require parliamentary approval as established by the Venezuelan Constitution. He likewise called for an explanation on whether the announced revenue figures are at current prices or adjusted for inflation. “19 dollars per barrel in 2051, when the project ends, correspond to a real value of 9 dollars today,” he wrote.

Venezuelan social movements also took to the streets of Caracas on Saturday to protest against “neocolonialism and imperialist attacks.” The mobilization was organized by the Popular Anti-Imperialist Front, a coalition of grassroots collectives that has staged regular demonstrations in recent weeks.

“The Popular Anti-Imperialist Front aims to bring together revolutionary movements to resist the imperialist aggression our country is facing,” activist Fernando Berroterán told Venezuelanalysis. “We are staging protests in different communities to raise popular consciousness.”

Berroterán stated that he was “completely opposed” to the announced deal, adding that the Popular Anti-Imperialist Front would meet and establish a joint position in the coming days.

Fellow organizer Orlando Vega argued that the Venezuelan government has “stumbled” in its response following the January 3 US attacks. He urged a firmer stance, demanding the release of Maduro and Flores and a review of legislation approved “under US coercion.”

“Our call is for the people to organize pockets of resistance against imperialism and Zionism,” Vega concluded.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Philadelphia, USA.

Asian stocks fell on Monday as hawkish comments from Federal Reserve boss Kevin Warsh saw investors ramp up bets on a US interest rate hike, while oil prices spiked after a fresh flare-up in the US-Iran war.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

With inflation remaining stubbornly high – largely on the back of elevated energy costs – the US central bank has come under pressure to act, and Warsh’s refusal to provide guidance has stoked uncertainty.

But in a highly anticipated speech at the Jackson Hole symposium of central bankers and economists in Wyoming, he left traders with few doubts that he was ready to increase borrowing costs.

Warsh said: “We must be confident that underlying inflation is moving to our objective, clearly and at sufficient speed. Otherwise, we have work to do.”

He called the spike in inflation – currently at 3.7% and nearly double the Fed’s 2% target – “concerning”, and said he would be “hard-pressed” to describe current financial conditions as “restrictive”, a potential hint that rate hikes could be on the horizon.

However, he stopped short of saying he would support a hike, adding: “I stand here today committed to a discipline, not to a decision.”

All three main indexes on Wall Street fell Friday. Yields on short-term US Treasury bonds – which reflect monetary policy expectations – jumped, and the dollar rallied against its peers. Gold, which benefits from lower interest rates, fell.

And Asia followed suit, with tech firms – which rely on borrowing to fuel their huge AI investments – leading the way down.

Tokyo, Seoul, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Taipei and Jakarta were all down, though Singapore and Wellington edged up.

Investors eye crucial data releases

Focus will now turn to a string of crucial data releases over the next two weeks before the Fed makes its decision, with jobs up this week and the consumer price index (CPI) next week.

“Should we get an inline payrolls print that does not give the Fed too much to work with, next week’s core CPI report will become the major decider for the market’s Fed belief system,” wrote Chris Weston at Pepperstone.

“The volatility priced around that outcome across rates, forex and equities could therefore be significant.”

Oil prices spike on US-Iran tensions

The Fed’s battle against inflation has been hobbled by the Iran war, which has pushed oil prices higher.

And after a run lower for most of last week, they spiked again on Monday, a day after the United States said it had attacked Iranian rocket launchers on a small island in the Strait of Hormuz, its first strikes on the country in a month.

The attack prompted Tehran to retaliate by hitting US military targets in Jordan. Both main crude contracts rose more than 2% on Monday.

The exchange came shortly after the US-Iran war hit the six-month mark, and at a time when hostilities had been subsiding.

The news revived concerns about the conflict, with attempts and peace talks appearing to be going nowhere and the strait – through which a fifth of global crude and gas passes – largely closed.

US officials this month vowed the “economic asphyxiation” of Iran to make it open the waterway.

“Hormuz is once again threatening to put a floor under oil just as Warsh is putting a ceiling on how much inflation patience markets should assume from the Fed,” said Quintex Intel’s Stephen Innes.

“For oil traders, (the) move is another reminder of how quickly the geopolitical premium can return.

“Physical flows through Hormuz have improved materially from their worst levels, which is precisely why crude had started giving back some of the fear premium, but the latest exchange shows how fragile that progress remains and how quickly the shipping story can be pushed back onto the trading desk.”

Additional sources • AFP

A new deal between Caracas and Washington would give US companies access to more than a fifth of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.

But there’s opposition in Venezuela, as well as debate about whether the plan is legal.

What could the agreement mean?

Presenter: Tom McRae

Guests:

Jose Chalhoub – political risk and oil analyst

Cornelia Meyer – commodity specialist and CEO of Meyer Resources

Francisco Rodriguez – senior research fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research at the University of Denver, former head of the Economic and Financial Advisory of the Venezuelan National Assembly

Aug. 30 (UPI) — U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday said the crude oil from Venezuela will be used to “fill up” the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

“One of the things I am going to do with the Venezuelan Oil is fill up the Strategic National Reserves which, because of Sleepy Joe Biden, has been virtually emptied,” Trump wrote. The “topping out” process will begin very shortly, and is a Gift from Venezuela to the People of the United States.”

Trump’s remarks came after he announced late Friday on social media that the South American country’s oil reserves will fall under “majority U.S. control” under a deal negotiated by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez.

“The United States of America has just entered into an Agreement with the Country of Venezuela on, THE BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY!” Trump wrote.

In a televised address Saturday, Rodriguez said the “historic” deal with the U.S. to deliver 65 billion barrels of oil over 25 years will allow Venezuela to develop its oil industry. She added that the country’s “ownership and sovereignty” of its resources will be preserved.

The SPR held 289.7 million barrels as of Aug. 21, nearly a 44-year law, according to government data. The Biden and Trump administrations each drew down from the reserves after supply disruptions, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the US-Israel war with Iran. The SPR level stood at nearly 395 million barrels at the end of the Biden administration in January 2025.

In 1995, issue 34 of Revista Bigott, a Venezuelan publication dedicated to anthropology and popular culture, discussed a resurgence of national sentiment after the 1992 coup attempts. One of its articles argued that a certain “llanero emboldening” of the coup leader, his decision to assume responsibility for what had happened, and the evocation of Simón Bolívar and the tricolor armband had restored appeal to a deeply rooted idea of ​​national identity. The government at the time tried to capitalize on this momentum to save the system, which, in light of what happened afterward, also amounted to saving democracy. But the country was already exhausted. It was burdened by the discrediting of political parties, the hangover from the “Saudi Venezuela” era, the depression that followed the 1983 devaluation known as Black Friday, widespread corruption, low oil prices, and an institutional framework that failed to modernize.

As the reader knows, Hugo Chávez ended up winning the election in 1998, and the joropo, the flags, and the constant singing of the national anthem were reborn, transcending the political debate. Everything then became known as Bolivarian, from the schools to the republic itself. Each campaign was presented as a patriotic epic, a battle, or a slogan borrowed from popular sayings. But with Chávez, the national identity was fractured. The country, the idea of ​​nationhood, and its symbols were hijacked. They belonged solely to his supporters. Just as an attempt was made to create a parallel institutional framework, something similar happened with the symbols: two flags, two coats of arms, and two ways of referring to everything. While the struggle against U.S. imperialism was presented as a heroic feat, the country was mortgaged to other powers and groups in exchange for political favors. Sovereignty was lost, both in terms of territory and the capacity to maintain a functional State serving its citizens.

These parallel structures (one crumbling, the other with feet of clay but relentless in its repression) blurred the boundaries of the republic. The country drowned in corruption and the disappearance of its shared identities. What could it defend? What could a country that expelled millions of its inhabitants and squandered its demographic dividend sound, smell, or taste like? Amid political violence, insecurity, and abuses, the economy shrank by more than half and came to be governed by the law of the strongest or the most connected, while individualism intensified. The country and its virtues became a source of nostalgia for better times or a promise of an uncertain future. The present, meanwhile, faded with bitterness.

Chavismo, in its eagerness to cling to power, also hijacked popular sovereignty. The excuse was that, although the opposition represented the majority, it should not be recognized because it was subservient and unpatriotic. After the theft of the 2024 elections and the US intervention of January 3, it became clear that the only sovereignty that truly matters to Chavismo is that which guarantees its own survival.

With the country dismantled, its people divided, and mired in neglect and impoverishment, Venezuela became the perfect prey for whoever is currently in power. One conclusion emerges from the “mega-agreement” announced by US President Donald Trump and vaguely explained by Delcy Rodríguez: details do matter. As presented, it appears to be a cruel and sad surrender of sovereignty, decided in the dead of night, like so many of the measures announced in recent decades.

The winner and his tyrant take everything—resources and concessions—as if it were a contemporary version of the handover of the Congo to Leopold II. A forced and macabre gift.

But having access to reserves is one thing; knowing how those barrels will be extracted is quite another. The question is what guarantees investors will have and, above all, what the country will receive in return. 

Between what has been announced and its implementation, a vast gap still exists, marked by illegalities and profound incompetence. There is also the risk that Venezuela will continue to replicate the “bolichicos” model, increasingly similar to that of Russia in the late 1990s: a small class of millionaires facing a country mired in impoverishment.

It will be up to oil experts and economists to study the implications of what has been announced, and to historians to review the precedents of similar agreements: the Rojas-Pereire Protocol of 1879, the concessions granted under Gómez, the Rockefeller Plan, or the concessions granted by the Pérez Jiménez dictatorship in 1956. For now, all we know is that the US administration is determined to embody everything its harshest critics have always held against it. Chavismo, for its part, is determined to become everything it claimed the opposition would be, whose rise to power it said it would prevent to “protect” Venezuela, even at the cost of violating human rights and disregarding popular sovereignty.

The situation compels us to reach agreements as a society, promote genuine democratization, and reclaim our sovereignty, understood as the collective exercise of autonomy and freedoms. If we fail to do so, we will remain subject to the circumstances and interests of others, instead of acting in accordance with our own interests. 

The outlook is not promising, but two questions remain: What future validity will any agreement signed with the regime currently governing Venezuela have? And what will the state of the planet be when Trump’s term ends on January 20, 2029?

Six months into the war on Iran, the largest US oil companies have posted their biggest profits since 2022, selling less oil at far higher prices. But the conflict is also putting their longstanding Gulf investments at risk, exposing the industry’s uneasy balance between wartime gains and mounting geopolitical vulnerability for investors worldwide.

Since the war began on February 28, Brent crude has risen about 22 percent, from $72 to $88 a barrel.

The Strait of Hormuz – through which one-fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas was shipped before the war – remains largely closed to commercial traffic, though Iran and Oman agreed last week on a temporary maritime route. Iran says the strait will not fully reopen until the United States fulfils its commitments under a lapsed interim peace deal, leaving longer-term security and management arrangements unresolved.

In the absence of a lasting resolution, the disruption is likely to continue supporting higher energy prices and creating windfalls for producers, despite placing energy companies’ regional assets and future projects at greater risk.

Rahul Choudhary, vice president of Upstream Research at Rystad Energy, an independent energy research company, said the conflict has already reduced the amount of oil and gas US energy firms are drawing from the Gulf region.

“Overall we expect US companies’ share of gas supplies [from the region] to fall by around 40 percent this year compared to last year [and] the share of oil supplies to drop by 30-35 percent,” he told Al Jazeera.

While higher commodity prices have helped offset the immediate financial impact, Choudhary said prolonged disruption is likely to delay major projects and weigh on the future growth plans of US oil and gas companies with a presence in the region.

Who has profited?

The surge in the oil price since early March, when Iran first closed the Strait of Hormuz, has delivered a windfall for oil companies, but gains have been tempered by challenges in the Gulf.

Chevron has limited exposure to Arab Gulf supply disruptions, with the region accounting for just 5 percent of its total global output. The group reported its highest quarterly profit in six years of $12bn in adjusted earnings on July 31.

ExxonMobil, by contrast, has been far more exposed to disruption in the Middle East, with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and Iranian attacks on US-linked infrastructure in the region affecting its operations in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which together account for 20 percent of its global equity upstream supply, according to Choudhary.

“We already saw in H1 [the first half of] 2026, the company’s upstream earnings dropped by around $1.3bn compared to H1 2025, due to lower upstream volumes from the Middle East. However, the shortfall was covered well by higher commodity prices,” Choudhary said.

The contrast highlights a broader divide between those US energy companies which have benefitted from tighter global supply – and the corresponding rise in the oil price – and those with assets, partnerships or operations in the Gulf at greater risk of disruption caused by recent attacks on energy facilities.

Where are US energy companies exposed in the Gulf?

The Gulf’s energy sector is dominated by state-owned giants such as Saudi Aramco, Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) and QatarEnergy.

Although these national oil and gas companies retain control over the region’s reserves and core infrastructure, US energy firms have carved out strategic positions across the region.

US companies generate revenue through stakes in production assets, joint ventures, production agreements, refining and petrochemical projects, as well as through long-term contracts to provide equipment, engineering and operational expertise.

ExxonMobil has some of the largest US commercial interests in the Gulf.

The company has been a major partner in Qatar’s LNG sector for decades, holding stakes in several QatarEnergy LNG joint ventures linked to the expansion of the North Field. The field is the Qatari section of the North Field-South Pars structure, the world’s largest natural gas field, which Qatar shares with Iran, where it is known as South Pars. ExxonMobil also holds an interest in the UAE’s Upper Zakum offshore oilfield alongside ADNOC.

Similarly, ConocoPhillips joined the North Field East (NFE) and North Field South (NFS) expansion projects with QatarEnergy in 2022 to increase export capacity at Ras Laffan.

The US group, Occidental Petroleum, has become one of the largest foreign producers in Oman, operating the Mukhaizna heavy oilfield, the country’s biggest producing oilfield. It also holds interests in UAE gas and pipeline projects.

Chevron maintains a smaller but strategically important Gulf footprint. Through Saudi Arabian Chevron, the company operates oil assets in the Saudi-Kuwait Partitioned Zone, including the Wafra field. In July, it said it was exploring potential routes to move Iraqi crude to Mediterranean export terminals, which could reduce reliance on the Strait of Hormuz.

Where have attacks on energy facilities taken place?

According to the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED), a US-registered independent conflict monitor, Iran and Iran-backed groups in the region have carried out at least 172 attacks on nonmilitary infrastructure across the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries since the US and Israel launched their war on February 28.

Energy infrastructure has been hit hardest, with oil and gas facilities, along with power plants and desalination plants, accounting for nearly half (48 percent) of all strikes on nonmilitary targets.

The UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain have suffered the highest number of successful strikes, with the majority aimed at oil and gas facilities.

Among the sites that have been struck are Kuwait’s Mina Abdullah and Mina al-Ahmadi refineries, the Bahrain Petroleum Company oil refinery, and ADNOC’s al-Ruwais Industrial City and the Habshan gas complex.

There have also been several strikes on Saudi Aramco facilities, most recently a drone strike on July 27 on the Abqaiq processing complex, one of the most critical nodes in Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure, processing more than seven million barrels of oil per day.

Nasser Khdour, Middle East assistant research manager at ACLED, said: “Oil and gas facilities, power plants and water desalination plants are likely to remain key targets for Iran because disruption to these sectors can increase economic pressure on Gulf states, while disruption to global energy supplies increases prices and pressure on the US during periods of escalation.”

In March, a drone attack close to the Saudi Aramco-ExxonMobil SAMREF refinery in Yanbu disrupted oil loading at the city’s Red Sea port. While the attack had only minimal operational impact, it highlighted the vulnerability of US-linked energy assets in the region.

Qatar’s Ras Laffan Industrial City, the world’s largest LNG export hub, which hosts major joint ventures between QatarEnergy, ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, also came under repeated attack in March, at one point forcing the plant to halt production entirely. In June, an explosion as a result of a “technical malfunction” on Qatar’s Barzan gas project, where ExxonMobil holds a stake, killed at least 13 people.

“In terms of gas assets being impacted, major blows have been [dealt to] companies [that are] part of LNG projects in Qatar: ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips,” Choudhary said.

He added that ExxonMobil’s share of LNG supply from Qatar is expected to fall significantly this year to about four million tonnes compared with 13 million tonnes last year, while ConocoPhillips has also experienced reduced volumes to one million tonnes this year compared with 2.5 million tonnes last year.

The attacks on Qatar’s LNG infrastructure could have longer-term consequences. Damage to LNG trains at Ras Laffan could take years to repair, according to QatarEnergy, while delays to Qatar’s North Field expansion projects could push back planned supply growth.

“The attack on LNG trains 4 and 6 at Rasgas damaged roughly 13 million tonnes of capacity, which will take anywhere between three to five years to come back online with a total repair cost estimate of around $3bn,” said Choudhary.

He added that the second most impacted gas project has been the Shah gas project in the UAE, in which Occidental Petroleum has a 40-percent stake and where drone attacks in March caused a fire at the gas plant that halted operations.

The conflict has also affected ExxonMobil’s oil interests in the UAE, Choudhary said. Production from Upper Zakum, where ExxonMobil has a 28 percent stake, was reduced between March and May when export routes were disrupted, limiting the ability to move offshore crude.

Beyond the UAE, the most significant impact on US companies’ oilfield operations played out in Iraq. A drone attack hit the Sarsang oilfield in March, followed by an explosion at one of its storage facilities in April, together causing damage to the field.

Looking ahead, Choudhary said higher prices could support cash flows, but prolonged conflict risks could threaten future growth. ExxonMobil’s $10bn Upper Zakum and Qatar LNG expansions could face delays, while ConocoPhillips remains exposed through investments in higher-risk markets, including its planned 42-percent stake in BP’s Kirkuk operations in Iraq.

“For companies like Chevron and Occidental Petroleum, whose presence are in less volatile countries like Israel and Oman respectively, the impact of escalations will not be as severe, as we have not seen significant disruption in these countries,” said Choudhary.

US oilfield service companies in the Gulf

Oilfield service giants, including US firms SLB (formerly Schlumberger), Halliburton and Baker Hughes, provide drilling technologies, equipment and operational expertise across the Gulf, supporting Saudi Aramco, ADNOC and QatarEnergy.

For oilfield service companies, the outlook is mixed, according to Chinmayi Teggi, energy research analyst at Rystad Energy, a research group. While higher oil prices and energy security concerns could lift demand over time, near-term margins remain under pressure from higher logistical costs, supply-chain disruptions and delayed projects.

“For the Big Three (SLB, Baker Hughes and Halliburton), the conflict continues to weigh on regional revenues,” Teggi told Al Jazeera, adding that second-quarter Middle East revenues were down 8-10 percent compared with the previous year across the three companies, while higher oil prices meant revenues were higher in other geographies.

However, a recovery in suspended operations and production could help drive growth into 2027.

For US companies, therefore, the Gulf remains both an opportunity and a risk.

“The impact on US companies will depend on the extent of exposure and countries in which these companies are present,” Choudhary said.

Their investments have secured US access to some of the world’s most important oil and LNG projects, but the conflict has exposed the risk of operating in a region where energy infrastructure has become increasingly vulnerable to geopolitical conflict.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly warned Iran against restricting access to the Strait of Hormuz, arguing that the waterway must remain open to global commerce.

But for companies with billions of dollars invested across the Gulf, the challenge isn’t just about keeping shipments moving – it is ensuring the infrastructure remains secure, they say.

Caracas, August 28, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – US President Donald Trump has announced a major energy agreement with Venezuela to “more than double US oil reserves.”

“The US has just entered into the biggest oil deal in history with Venezuela,” he wrote on social media. “Working with highly respected [Venezuelan Acting President] Delcy Rodríguez, and through a partnership with private business, [the US] has secured majority control of more than 65 billion barrels of proven Venezuelan oil reserves.”

Trump added that the purported agreement would lower US fuel prices “long into the future” while setting Venezuela “on a course toward tremendous success and great prosperity.”

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the reported deal “a huge win for both the American and Venezuelan people” and claimed it would bring “nearly US $100 billion in private investment” to the Caribbean nation. Trump and Rubio disclosed no specifics about the arrangement.

Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez confirmed the “historic agreement” via a social media message on Friday night.

“I extend my deepest gratitude to Trump, Rubio, and the US government for their support in developing this agreement, which represents a historic milestone in US-Venezuela relations,” she wrote.

Rodríguez stated that the deal will involve private corporations developing 17 “strategic fields” with 65 billion barrels of proven reserves. She echoed Rubio’s $100 billion investment claim and pledged that the projects would yield $209 billion in tax revenues. According to the acting president, the announced agreement “ushers in a new era of growth and prosperity.”

The high-level negotiations were first reported by Axios on Thursday.

The Venezuelan Constitution establishes that all mineral and hydrocarbon resources are “inalienable public domain” goods. Transferring ownership of oil reserves would require a constitutional reform.

According to Reuters, the deal could take the form of a long-term lease, with the Trump administration then auctioning or allocating fields to select corporations. Bloomberg reported that the lease could be as long as 100 years.

The seventeen fields in question are said to include undeveloped extra-heavy crude projects in the Orinoco Oil Belt and mature light crude fields in Lake Maracaibo. The resulting supply would be “guaranteed” for the US as part of efforts to rein in rising fuel costs amid the ongoing standoff with Iran in the Persian Gulf.

Bloomberg additionally reported that Washington’s direct involvement in Venezuela’s oil industry could be conducted by the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital (OSC) in partnership with Venezuelan oil mogul Alejandro Betancourt. The Biden administration created the OSC in 2022 to fund private sector initiatives deemed vital for US national security interests. 

Since the January 3 US military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the acting Rodríguez administration has fast-tracked a diplomatic rapprochement with Washington while also opening the country’s energy and mining sectors to Western companies. 

A new Hydrocarbon Law and associated regulations were drafted in consultation with oil executives and US officials. The reform slashed royalties and taxes and ceded control over operations and sales to private firms under joint venture or concession-type models. Caracas also acceded to foreign companies’ demands in allowing for legal disputes to be settled by international arbitration bodies.

The legislative overhaul replaced the 2001 Hydrocarbon Law approved by former President Hugo Chávez and subsequent decrees that established a leading role for the Venezuelan state in the energy sector, which in turn fueled the country’s economic and social progress in the 2000s.

The US Treasury has maintained wide-reaching sanctions in place while issuing licenses to hand-picked companies and barring the participation of enterprises from China, Iran, and Russia. Furthermore, Venezuelan oil revenues are presently deposited in a US Treasury account, with the disbursement timings and amounts left at Trump officials’ discretion.

On Thursday, the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) amended eight sanctions waivers concerning oil, mining, and telecommunications. OFAC removed a requirement that contracts signed with Venezuelan state entities be drafted in accordance with US laws or jurisdiction. The agency stated that “investment-related reforms” by the acting Rodríguez government had made the clause unnecessary.

Venezuela’s investor-friendly regulatory environment has led to industry giants, including Chevron, Repsol, and Shell, striking new deals or renegotiating existing ones for crude and natural gas exploration. Companies with no energy track record such as Lionheart Capital and Crossover Energy are likewise set to take control of strategic oilfields.

Oil services company SLB, formerly Schlumberger, recently signed an agreement with PDVSA for reservoir studies and service provision. SLB has set the reactivation of 15 oil rigs in the South American country as a short-term priority.

According to Reuters, the multinational firm will also access prized data on Venezuela’s oilfields, from reservoir characterization to real-time output information. SLB allegedly seeks to “make Venezuela’s oil data reliable again.”

In another indication of Caracas’ dramatic diplomatic realignment with Washington, Venezuelan officials are reportedly mulling the possibility of exiting the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

Venezuela played a leading role in the creation of OPEC in 1960 as it sought to bring together Global South oil-producing nations to secure better and more stable oil prices in global markets. Former President Chávez also prioritized revamping OPEC after a prior “Oil Opening” under US-aligned governments had oriented the industry toward US interests and undermined the organization.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Philadelphia, USA.

[Updated on August 28 at 8.30 pm ET following Trump’s announcement.]

Aug. 28 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Friday said his administration had reached a deal with Venezuela to secure a stake in more than 65 billion barrels of the country’s oil reserves.

In an evening social media post, Trump called the move “the biggest oil deal in world history,” and said it would come at no cost to American taxpayers.

“This Historic Transaction MORE THAN DOUBLES American Oil Reserves, greatly increases our Oil Supply, and will substantially lower Gas Prices for all Americans, long into the future, while helping to continue to set Venezuela on a course toward Tremendous Success and Great Prosperity,” the president wrote on Truth Social.

Trump has been eyeing oil reserves in Venezuela since he ordered the military in January to seize former President Nicolas Maduro.

The president said his administration and Venezuela’s interim president, Delcy Rodriguez, reached the deal in a partnership with private businesses.

Inventory of the United States’ strategic oil reserve hit a four-decade low this month, following supply disruption caused by the war with Iran, CNBC reported.

Venezuela has the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves.

The United States could take over as many as 17 oil fields in the South American country, though many lack any infrastructure and could cost billions to develop, the Washington Post reported.

“I think oil companies in the end will be pretty hesitant,” Francisco Monaldi, director of the Latin American Energy Program at Rice University, told the newspaper.

State Secretary Marco Rubio, who was involved in the negotiations, said the deal would bring $100 billion in private investment to Venezuela.

“This deal is a huge win for both the American and Venezuelan people,” Rubio said in a statement on X. “It demonstrates how President Trump’s bold foreign policy is driving America First wins: securing stable reserves and low-cost oil in our Hemisphere and lowering gas prices here at home.”

US president says deal secures majority US control of more than 65 billion barrels of proven oil reserves in Venezuela.

The United States has struck a deal with Caracas that would give them control of some 65 billion barrels of Venezuela’s proven oil reserves, President Donald Trump has announced, while reviving the OPEC nation’s battered energy industry.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump said the “historic transaction more than doubles American oil reserves” and “will substantially lower gas prices for all Americans”.

“At my direction, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, working closely with Highly Respected Interim President of Venezuela, Delcy Rodriguez, and, through a partnership with private business, have secured majority US control of more than 65 BILLION BARRELS of proven Oil Reserves in Venezuela, at no cost to the American Taxpayer,” Trump wrote.

Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodriguez welcomed the deal, which is expected to bring about $209bn to the state’s treasury.

The announcement followed weeks of negotiations over an agreement that would give American companies long-term access to a group of Venezuelan oilfields and guarantee the resulting crude supply to the US.

Venezuelan officials are preparing to sign agreements next week granting new oil exploration and production rights to a number of companies, particularly US firms.

Sources previously told Reuters news agency that a lease model was under consideration, with fields potentially auctioned to US producers, but the arrangement could face legal and constitutional challenges in Venezuela, where the state retains control over core oil industry activities.

The new deal would represent a dramatic expansion of Washington’s role in Venezuela’s oil industry as the Trump administration seeks to revive the country’s production and secure more crude for US refineries. Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, but produces only 1.25 million barrels per day, far below its potential after years of underinvestment, mismanagement and sanctions.

Trump did not disclose the structure of the agreement, the fields or companies involved, nor how the US would exercise majority control over the reserves.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the agreement as a win for both countries, saying on X that it would secure stable, low-cost oil for the US and help lower petrol prices.

For Venezuela, Rubio said the deal would bring nearly $100bn in private investment, support thousands of high-paying jobs and help rebuild the country’s economy.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday said the U.S. has entered an agreement with Venezuela to take control of 65 billion barrels of the South American country’s oil reserves.

Trump in a social media post announced the agreement he said was negotiated by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodríguez.

“The United States of America has just entered into an Agreement with the Country of Venezuela on, THE BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY!” Trump wrote.

The Venezuelan government’s press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The announcement of the deal comes nearly nine months after the U.S. military at Trump’s direction carried out an operation to capture Venezuela’s president Nicolás Maduro and spirit him to the United States to face federal narcoterrorism and drug trafficking charges.

Trump faces mounting pressure to address high gas prices as the war in Iran on Friday reached a six-month milestone with no conclusion in sight. The U.S. has tapped its strategic petroleum reserves, which in early August fell below 300 million barrels, down by more than 100 million barrels since the start of 2026.

The U.S.-Israel war against Iran has led to a dramatic slowdown of Gulf oil moving through the Strait of Hormuz, which about 20% of the world petroleum passed through prior to the conflict.

The average price of gas in the U.S. stood at about $4.09 a gallon on Friday, according to AAA. The average price was $3.21 at the same time last year.

Trump in his social media post Friday evening alluded to the Venezuela deal being part of a private partnership. The White House did not immediately reply to a request for comment about the private sector partners involved in the deal, and details on how the arrangement would work were not provided.

Persuading big American oil companies to return the region could face headwinds given and decades of badly damaged infrastructure.

Days after the ouster of Maduro, Trump gathered oil executives at the White House and called on them to rush back into Venezuela. Executives expressed interest in the opportunity but there was also a measure of caution given their past experience in the country.

Darren Woods, CEO of ExxonMobil, the largest U.S. oil company, said at that moment he saw the country as “un-investable.”

But Trump has insisted that his administration has brought a measure of stability to Venezuela.

He has argued that Venezuela stole U.S. oil when former Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez’s moved decades ago to nationalize hundreds of foreign-owned assets, including those owned by American oil companies.

Rodríguez, in one of her early moves after taking power, signed a law that opens the nation’s oil sector to privatization and reversed a bedrock tenet of the self-proclaimed socialist movement that had ruled the country for more than two decades.

Rubio said on X that the agreement would usher in $100 billion in private investment into Venezuela and lead to lower gas prices in the United States.

“This deal is a huge win for both the American and Venezuelan people,” Rubio posted.

Venezuela has one of the largest oil reserves in the world, with an estimated 303 billion barrels of crude oil in the ground. That’s about 17% of the world’s supply, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Madhani and Binkley write for the Associated Press. Regina Garcia Cano in Caracas contributed to this report.

The Iran war is settling into attrition, with no regime collapse and Gulf economies facing growing uncertainty

Analysts broadly agree the United States and Israel’s war on Iran will not see regime collapse in Tehran or a definite victory for Washington, but rather a dragged-out affair of stagnation and attrition.

The hope among the US leadership at the start of the war, which began after surprise Israeli and US attacks on February 28, was that mounting economic and military pressure on Iran would force a structural shift in Tehran. Six months on, it is clear this vision will not come about, and instead many are preparing for a protracted war and managed fallout.

Oil-dependent economies are still absorbing supply shocks after traffic in the Strait of Hormuz slowed to a trickle of pre-war levels following Iran’s attacks on shipping and a US blockade on Iranian ports.

The US military is still entrenched in a region that remains its most militarised in years. Although the war’s intensity has lessened since a memorandum of understanding (MoU) was signed by Washington and Tehran in June, there is no sign it will conclude, leading to continued uncertainty about the future.

Existing tensions, such as those between the Houthi rebels and Saudi Arabia in Yemen, look only set to increase as the war drags on. The influence of rival powers, such as those of India and China, remains stalled rather than stopped, with Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative having already established itself within the Middle East and North Africa. All in all, the region remains in flux where formal alliances with outside powers no longer guarantee safety.

The defence agreement between Turkiye, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia recently signed in Mecca will likely be the first of many such military pacts agreed in the region.

“The war has just accelerated trends, but hasn’t really started anything that wasn’t already under way. The Gulf countries were already diversifying their economies,” Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House, told Al Jazeera. “Many were already looking at broadening their defence partnerships beyond existing US security guarantees, as well as increasing their own defence capability.”

Israel, for its part, is still pursuing its regional project of “paramountcy”, HA Hellyer of the Royal United Services Institute said, despite its failure to bring Iran to its knees this year.

“There is no chance of the government in Tehran falling in the next six months,” Hellyer told Al Jazeera. “If everything were to theoretically stay the same … with just increased economic pressure, that could eventually cause a ripple effect that could lead to state collapse in Iran. But we’re talking years, not months, and everything is not likely to stay the same.”

The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz and strikes on regional cities have hindered Gulf states’ plans to use oil revenues as an engine to diversify their economies and build on their reputations as a safe haven to encourage investors.

Shipments of oil, derivative products and liquefied natural gas (LNG) have been repeatedly and severely disrupted since the US and Israel launched their attacks on Iran in February.

Transit through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, which saw attacks on shipping by the Houthis during Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, became even more hazardous in July, when the Iran-allied Houthis declared a naval blockade of Saudi Arabia.

“The price of oil has increased broadly in line with the Gulf states’ difficulties in exporting it,” John Sfakianakis, chief economist at the Gulf Research Center, told Al Jazeera. “Is this going to go for six months? Is it going to go on for longer?”

Exacerbating the Gulf states’ difficulties is that, although the price of oil has risen, so has inflation. In addition to the economic difficulties the war has created, there is also growing pressure for Gulf states to invest more in defence.

For now, the majority of the states caught in the middle will look at ways of living with the turmoil and managing the consequences.

The amount of Iranian oil offered to Chinese buyers has declined sharply and is rapidly running out, while prices have jumped, Reuters reported Friday, showing the effectiveness of the U.S. blockade of Iran’s ports in preventing new supply from leaving the Persian Gulf.

NEW YORK — Nearing the six-month mark of the Iran war and facing diminishing stockpiles of key weapons, the Trump administration is touting a crushing financial campaign against Tehran, promising an “economic D-Day” against a country that has withstood nearly five decades of punishing American sanctions.

With sparse details, President Trump announced this week that the U.S. would be imposing an “unprecedented” level of economic warfare and isolation on Iran, aiming to force its leadership to cave to demands to end its nuclear program and fully reopen the crucial Strait of Hormuz to oil and natural gas tankers.

It reflects the dire reality Trump faces with an increasingly unpopular war he can’t seem to end just months before pivotal midterm elections that will decide whether his Republican Party keeps control of Congress. Whether out of desperation or strategy, the president is refocusing America’s might on bringing Iran to its knees through an accelerated sanctions campaign against one of the most economically penalized countries in the world.

In response to the threat, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi posted Friday on X the history of U.S. sanctions against Iran, saying, “We have seen this movie before. Same bull. Different bullies.”

The immediate reaction from Iran hawks has been praise and a call for patience as it plays out, while other analysts warn that Trump is refusing to learn the lessons of his predecessors.

In an interview Thursday on CNBC, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent offered a small glimpse of what may be ahead, threatening secondary sanctions on nations and companies that conduct business with Iran.

He did not reveal who would be targeted as part of this next phase of the administration’s Operation Economic Fury, which earlier had focused on entities and people who buy oil from or bank with Iran. China and India, however, are major buyers of Iranian oil.

“If you insist on doing business with them, then the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government will put its full might and force against you,” Bessent said. “It’s time for our allies and the rest of the world to make a decision.”

Some experts see ‘uncharted waters’ that could force Iran’s hand

Despite decades of U.S. sanctions against Iran, the Trump administration is arguing that it’s only a matter of time and that striking the right economic target would get Tehran to its breaking point.

Richard Goldberg, who coordinated efforts to put diplomatic pressure on Iran in Trump’s first term, said the consequences of U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites last year, the war this year and the American naval blockade on Iranian ports have created the perfect storm for capitulation — one that didn’t previously exist.

“I think we’re watching a strategy, whether it takes a short time or a long time, that is very much about fundamentally changing the future of the world by seeing the end of this regime,” said Goldberg, who is now at the hawkish Washington think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, or FDD.

“I caution everyone — including myself, who has worked on sanctions, who’s worked on financial warfare — to have the humility to admit that we are in uncharted waters,” he said.

He said the decision this week by the United Arab Emirates — once one of Tehran’s most important trading partners — to suspend trade with Iran over an alleged missile attack will only further isolate the government.

Beyond trade in domestically produced goods, the Emiratis had helped the country absorb some of the shocks caused by sanctions through its re-export hub.

Targeting allies and partners comes at a price

With nearly all of Iran’s energy, financial and transportation sectors already covered by U.S. sanctions, Trump’s aim appears to be to apply secondary sanctions on countries, including allies and partners, that have not cut all ties with Iran to starve the country of any remaining income it may still be receiving.

In many ways, it is a redux of Trump’s first-term maximum-pressure campaign, which he has ramped up during his second term to include military action.

But as Trump and his allies discovered during his first administration, it can be difficult to enforce secondary sanctions without harming U.S. interests and provoking reciprocal measures. There were numerous instances of the administration granting sanctions waivers to countries, particularly those that rely on Iranian oil for their energy needs.

“Trump’s strategy now rests on targeting Tehran directly by impeding its touch points and access to the formal financial system and international economy,” said Behnam Ben Taleblu, senior director of the FDD’s Iran program. “This will require making the Iran issue more important in U.S. bilateral relations with countries in Europe and Asia.”

Iran doesn’t see an ‘open door’ at the end of the sanctions campaign

Iranian officials and analysts have accused the Republican president of flip-flopping with his latest pivot to economic pressure against Tehran. Trump has long derided past leaders who used sanctions to limit Iran’s ability to pay for its military and nuclear development.

In a post last week on X, Esmail Baghaei, a spokesman for Iran’s Foreign Ministry, wrote that Washington’s pattern of retreating to sanctions when it doesn’t want to pursue diplomacy has proven to be futile.

“Iran has demonstrated over decades that it will not be strangled by these exhausted refrains,” he said. “The real risk is that American politicians, clinging to this bad habit, will instead strangle their own remaining chances of a less humiliating exit from a crisis of their own making.”

Ali Vaez, Iran director at the International Crisis Group, said the Trump administration’s decision to take its own maximum-pressure policy to new heights with military action seems to ignore years of U.S. foreign-policy lessons that show Iran does not respond well to pressure.

If anything, he says, the latest economic campaign has only “hardened Iran’s position.”

“I think (Trump’s) blind spot is the fact that the only thing that the Iranian regime views as more dangerous than suffering from U.S. sanctions is surrendering to U.S. terms,” Vaez said.

Plus, the past year of start-stop diplomacy has only worsened the already fragile dynamic between the longtime adversaries, Vaez says, adding that Iranian officials’ lack of trust in Trump and his mediators has created an untenable foundation.

“They believe that even if they capitulate to U.S. terms under economic duress, Trump would move the goalposts and ask for more,” he said. “And this is really the fundamental problem: Pressure without an open door is an exercise in futility.”

Amiri writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Matthew Lee and Fatima Hussein in Washington contributed to this report.

Caracas, August 20, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan government has signed agreements with Texas-based Hunt Oil and SLB amid ongoing efforts to court foreign oil firms.

Venezuelan Oil Minister Paula Henao finalized the deals on Tuesday on behalf of Acting President Delcy Rodríguez.

Hunt Oil, originally founded by far-right tycoon H.L. Hunt in the 1930s, signed “Productive Participation Contracts,” which are concession-type deals, to operate the mature Caro and Carisito oilfields in eastern Venezuela. The two projects, belonging to the Oriente branch of state oil company PDVSA, produce light crude and natural gas.

CEO Hunter L. Hunt said in a statement that his firm “wants to play a constructive role in revitalizing and growing Venezuela’s oil and gas production.” Hunt Oil previously leveraged its close ties to the George W. Bush administration to secure energy contracts in Iraqi Kurdistan following the 2003 US invasion.

For its part, SLB, formerly Schlumberger, inked deals focused on reservoir studies and provision of services. SLB is the world’s largest oilfield services provider. According to Reuters, the multinational will work to reactivate 15 oil rigs in the Caribbean nation, with only two onshore rigs presently active.

Crossover Energy, a company created in 2022 with no prior energy track record, is also reportedly close to finalizing agreements to run Venezuelan oilfields, having acquired an operating firm in eastern Venezuela. Crossover Energy had signed a memorandum of understanding with the acting Rodríguez administration in May.

The Colorado-based firm showed no verifiable commercial registration, public website, or operating history before its agreement with the Venezuelan government. Crossover CEO Eric McCrady previously ran Sundance Energy Inc., which filed for bankruptcy in 2021 with over $250 million in debt, before being sold and liquidated in 2022. 

Henao traveled to Houston alongside PDVSA executives to participate in an event titled “Empowering Venezuela: Energy, Investment & Opportunity” on Tuesday as part of the August 17-20 International Meeting for Applied Geoscience and Energy (IMAGE). She was joined by US Energy Undersecretary Kyle Haustveit.

According to Venezuelan state broadcaster VTV, Henao presented “investment opportunities” while also detailing “the benefits of recent reforms and joint work with the US Department of Energy.” The Venezuelan minister went on to hold meetings with US officials to “consolidate the cooperation agenda.”

In parallel, ONGC Videsh Ltd (OVL), the overseas arm of India’s state-owned Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), recently secured a US Treasury waiver to resume its activities in Venezuela. 

“Now we have full freedom to work on the Venezuela project because earlier we were restricting our operations there because of the sanction-related risks,” ONGC executive Anupam Agarwal said in a press conference last week.

OVL owns 40 and 11 percent respective stakes in the San Cristóbal and Carabobo-1 extra-heavy crude ventures in the Orinoco Oil Belt. Agarwal stated that the company was in talks with Venezuelan authorities to renegotiate agreements and assume operational control of the projects.

Furthermore, ONGC is also looking to collect around US $500 million in overdue dividends that state oil company PDVSA was unable to pay due to US sanctions.

Hunt Oil, SLB, and OVL have followed energy majors such as Shell, Chevron, and Repsol in taking advantage of Venezuela’s pro-business overhaul of the energy sector. A reformed Hydrocarbon Law slashed royalties and taxes, turned over control of operations and sales to private corporations, and subjected disputes to international arbitration bodies.

In addition to securing a favorable environment for Western corporations, the Trump administration has also seized control of Venezuelan oil revenues, which are deposited in a US Treasury account before US officials decide when and how much should be returned to Caracas. The White House is also reportedly deducting the costs of its January 3 military operation against Venezuela from the export earnings.

According to Bloomberg, BP received a US Treasury license to join Vitol and Trafigura in lifting and re-selling Venezuelan crude. A BP tanker loaded fuel oil headed for Houston on Tuesday. The intermediary companies secure cargoes at below-market rates and deposit the proceeds into a designated US Treasury account before rerouting them to final customers for a profit.

The London-based multinational is likewise moving forward in multiple offshore natural gas projects in Venezuelan waters. BP, alongside Qatar’s UCC and the UAE’s XRG, is set to develop the second phase of the Loran Field. It will also explore the Cocuina-Manakin Field alongside Trinidad and Tobago’s NGC. The Venezuelan state holds no stake in either project, with the owed royalties and taxes also significantly reduced under the reformed legislation and likewise to be deposited in the US Treasury account.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Philadelphia.

Published on
20/08/2026 – 8:19 GMT+2

Oil prices rose on Thursday, holding near their highest levels in weeks, as the deadlocked standoff between the United States and Iran kept supply concerns elevated in the Middle East.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Brent crude, the international benchmark, rose 0.3% to $91.90 a barrel, while US benchmark crude edged up 0.2% to $84.57 a barrel.

Prices have climbed steadily since the start of August, when Brent was trading at around $87.38 a barrel, as the standoff over the Strait of Hormuz keeps supply concerns elevated even without any single new escalation.

Both benchmarks remain well above the barrel prices they were trading at before the war began.

Markets rebound on Treasury move

Global shares rallied on Thursday, reversing course after Wednesday’s heavy sell-off in artificial intelligence-related stocks, after the US Treasury Department said it would at least double the size of its buyback operations for longer-dated government debt, to $4 billion (€3.4bn) or more per operation, starting in September.

The move eased pressure on bond markets that had pushed yields to multi-decade highs in recent months, and lifted risk appetite across Asia.

South Korea’s Kospi surged 6.1% to 6,858.91, rebounding sharply after sinking 5.8% on Wednesday. Samsung Electronics jumped 9.7%, while SK Hynix surged 14.1% after the memory chipmaker announced a share buyback plan.

Japan’s Nikkei 225 added roughly 0.9%, while the Topix rose 0.8%, recovering some of Wednesday’s losses. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng gained 1.1% to 25,786.32, and the Shanghai Composite rose 0.3% to 3,905.23. Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 was up 0.3% to 9,066.40.

Bond yields ease from multi-decade highs

The yield on the 10-year US Treasury fell to around 4.64%, from 4.71% on Tuesday, while the 30-year yield dropped to 5.18% from 5.28% — pulling back from its highest level since 2007.

Yields have climbed in recent months on concerns over inflation stemming from the war in Iran and rising government debt.

Japan’s 10-year government bond yield, which had been trading near a three-decade high, fell to around 2.83% from more than 2.89% on Wednesday.

On Wall Street on Wednesday, the S&P 500 climbed 0.2% for its first gain in four sessions, snapping a three-day losing streak. The Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Nasdaq composite each added 0.2%.

The US dollar rose to 158.60 yen from 158.16, while the euro slipped slightly to $1.1676 from $1.1677.

Additional sources • AP