oil

The price of oil has soared over $100 a barrel globally as a result of the US-Israeli war on Iran. Iran has effectively shut down shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz, while Israel has attacked critical Iranian oil depots. Despite public pressure and outrage, all parties seem prepared to continue the war. What will it mean for the global economy and the people caught in the crossfire?

Listen to more about the Strait of Hormuz here.

In this episode: 

• Zein Basravi (@virtualzein), Al Jazeera Senior Correspondent

Episode credits:

This episode was produced by Chloe K. Li, with Sarí el-Khalili, Catherine Nouhan, Tuleen Barakat, Spencer Cline and our host, Malika Bilal. It was edited by Alexandra Locke.

Our sound designer is Alex Roldan.  Our video editors are Hisham Abu Salah and Mohannad al-Melhem. Alexandra Locke is The Take’s executive producer.

Special thanks to Sheila H.

Connect with us:

@AJEPodcasts on X, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube

The global energy landscape is facing its most volatile period in decades following the US-Israeli strikes against Iran on 28 February that triggered a wider and potentially prolonged conflict in the Middle East.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

What began as a targeted military operation has rapidly escalated into a direct confrontation with global economic implications.

Based on claims by Iranian state media and regional reports, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has ostensibly adopted a strategy of “energy blackmail” to leverage the international community into pressuring the US and Israel to cease its attacks.

The $200 per oil barrel threat was first articulated shortly after the conflict began.

On Sunday 1 March, a senior IRGC spokesperson warned that if “cowardly anti-human actions” continued, the world should prepare for a massive price surge, even as high as $200 per oil barrel.

This rhetoric has since become a central pillar of Tehran’s messaging.

As recently as this Wednesday, Ebrahim Zolfaqari, the spokesperson for Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya military command headquarters, told state media: “Get ready for the oil barrel to be at $200, because the oil price depends on the regional security which you have destabilised.”

Iran’s tactical disruption

The IRGC’s current strategy relies on “internationalising” the cost of the conflict.

By disrupting the flow of nearly 20% of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) through the Strait of Hormuz, Iran aims to drag the global economy into the fray.

This is why the IRGC has targeted vessels from neutral nations, including ships sailing under Thai, Japanese and Marshall Islands flags, among others.

According to energy analysts, this disruption is designed to create domestic political pressure within Western nations, to in turn force the US and Israel to pull back on military action in exchange for energy stability.

By striking countries that have not attacked them directly, Tehran is signaling that no maritime trade is safe as long as the strikes on its soil continue.

The main vector of this strategy is precisely the disruption of energy markets, an element Iran can influence directly through its geographical advantage.

A history of oil price shocks

While $200 per barrel sounds astronomical, oil has approached similar levels in the past when adjusted for inflation.

The highest nominal price ever recorded was around $147 in 2008, driven by peak oil fears and rampant speculation just before the global financial crisis. When adjusted for 2026 inflation, that 2008 peak represents roughly $211 per barrel.

Previous major shocks, such as the 1973-74 Arab Oil Embargo and the 1979 Iranian Revolution, saw prices quadruple and double respectively from pre-crisis levels.

In 1980, prices hit a nominal peak of about $39.50, which would be approximately $160 in today’s terms.

However, the current crisis involves a total physical blockade of one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoint, increasing the risk of a price “moonshot”.

Market response and reserves

At the time of writing, Brent crude is trading just above $100 per barrel, a sharp increase from the $60 range seen in mid-February before the Iran war began.

The International Energy Agency has attempted to stabilise the market by orchestrating the largest-ever coordinated release of strategic reserves, but the continuation of Iranian strikes agaisnt oil infrastructure and tankers has largely neutralised the effort.

With insurance providers cancelling war-risk coverage and shipping companies redirecting fleets, the market remains in a state of high anxiety.

If the blockade on the Strait of Hormuz persists, the $200 figure may shift from a political threat to an increasingly likely scenario.

In a recent report, Oxford Economics identified $140 per barrel as the threshold at which the global economy tips into mild recession, reducing world GDP by 0.7% by year-end and pushing the UK, the Eurozone and Japan into contraction.

The United States military is “not ready” to accompany oil ships through the Strait of Hormuz, a top official in President Donald Trump’s administration says as Iran continues to block the strategic waterway.

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright told the CNBC business news channel on Thursday that the markets are experiencing a “short-term disruption”, predicting that the war would go on for “weeks, not months”.

Despite Trump’s repeated threats, Iran has largely succeeded in shutting down the strait, which links the Gulf to the Indian Ocean. The closure has sent oil prices soaring.

Wright described the effects of the crisis as “short-term pain for long-term gain”, arguing that the US is “destroying” Iran’s ability to threaten the energy market.

Last week, Trump suggested that the US Navy would escort ships through the Gulf, but Wright said on Thursday that the move “can’t happen now”.

“We’re simply not ready. All of our military assets right now are focused on destroying Iran’s offensive capabilities and the manufacturing industry that supplies their offensive capabilities,” the energy secretary said.

“We don’t want this to be a brush-off for a year or two. We want to permanently destroy their ability to build missiles, to build roads, to have a nuclear programme.”

His comments came as Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, affirmed in his first public comment since being selected to succeed his assassinated father, Ali Khamenei, that the Strait of Hormuz should remain closed during the war.

“The will of the people is to continue effective and deterrent defence,” Khamenei said in a written statement. “The tactic of closing the Strait of Hormuz must also continue to be used.”

The Iranian military has said it would “welcome” the US Navy escorting oil ships, suggesting it is prepared to strike US forces in the narrow waterway.

On Wednesday, three commercial vessels were attacked near the strait.

Wright announced earlier this week on social media that the US Navy had escorted an oil ship through the strait, then quickly deleted the post. The White House subsequently confirmed that the claim was not true.

It is not clear why the statement was released and then retracted.

Assurances by US officials that Washington would open the strait have temporarily calmed markets, only for prices to spike again.

The price of a barrel of oil peaked at about $120 on Sunday, up from about $70 before the US and Israel launched the war on February 28. It has been yo-yoing between $80 and $100 for the past few days.

In addition to the marine blockade, Iran has targeted oil installations across the Gulf.

As one of the world’s largest oil producers, the US is largely self-sufficient. But possible shortages in Asia and Europe have put a strain on prices globally.

According to data from the American Automobile Association, the average price of one gallon (3.78 litres) of petrol in the US is now $3.60, up from $2.94 last month.

Rising energy prices could fuel inflation and affect the cost of basic goods, including food.

But Trump suggested on Thursday that the US is benefitting from skyrocketing oil prices.

“The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money,” the US president wrote in a social media post.

“BUT, of far greater interest and importance to me, as President, is stopping an evil Empire, Iran, from having Nuclear Weapons, and destroying the Middle East and, indeed, the World.”

Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon, and Trump reiterated for months before the current conflict that US strikes against Iranian facilities in June had “obliterated” the country’s nuclear programme.

Brent futures rose sharply on Thursday, spiking above $100 before easing slightly but remaining higher than levels seen earlier in the week as markets stay incredibly volatile.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

This comes despite an unprecedented decision by the 32-member International Energy Agency (IEA) on Wednesday to release a record 400 million barrels to calm markets, more than double the volume released after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Following the IEA decision, Iran stepped up its offensive campaign and launched strikes on Omani oil storage facilities at the Salalah port and multiple ships in and near the Strait of Hormuz, sending prices higher again.

Record coordinated release of reserves

The US alone is contributing 172 million barrels. Germany, France and Italy also confirmed they would tap their stocks, while Japan said it would begin releases next Monday.

IEA executive director Fatih Birol described the current Iran-related crisis as an “oil market challenge unprecedented in scale”, adding that the collective response reflected “strong solidarity” in defence of global energy security.

Exports of crude and refined products from the region have dropped to 10-15% of pre-war levels, with the Strait of Hormuz, which normally carries one-fifth of the world’s oil, effectively closed to the large majority of tankers.

Iran’s attacks blunt expected price relief

The new Iranian strikes came at lightning speed, directly after the IEA announcement.

Drones targeted fuel storage tanks and silos at Oman’s Salalah port, igniting fires that Omani authorities were still working to contain late on Wednesday.

British maritime security firm Ambrey confirmed damage to the facilities, while Danish shipping giant Maersk temporarily halted port operations.

Omani officials stressed there had been “no disruption to the continuity of oil supplies or petroleum derivatives” inside the country itself, while Iranian state media reported that President Pezeshkian had assured Oman’s sultan the incident would be investigated.

At the same time, six vessels were struck in the Gulf and Strait of Hormuz.

Among the reports, there was confirmation of a projectile hitting a container ship near the UAE and strikes on two tankers in Iraqi waters.

UK Maritime Trade Operations, and other monitoring groups, attributed the incidents to Iranian forces or proxies.

These developments, occurring the very day of the reserves release, appear to have smothered the anticipated calming effect on prices.

As of Thursday, the number of ships struck in the region since the beginning of the conflict rose to at least sixteen.

Record release may signal deeper market concerns

Some analysts note that the sheer volume of the release could itself be interpreted negatively. Previous coordinated actions never exceeded 183 million barrels.

The scale of the release suggests importing nations already view the disruption as the most severe and long-lasting in decades.

Even worse, a record release may not be enough.

Speaking to Euronews, Warren Patterson, Head of Commodities Strategy at ING, was blunt in his assessment.

“A record 400 million barrel release from emergency reserves is helpful, but it’s not going to go very far to offset the roughly 15 million daily supply currently disrupted.”

Patterson also added that “the only solution that will bring oil prices down on a sustained basis is getting oil flowing through the Strait of Hormuz again.”

Oxford Economics echoes this concern, warning that “the economic effect of higher energy costs rises as the oil price increases,” in a report that seemingly indicates the crisis is far from over and we have yet to feel the compounding effect of the initial shock.

Russian sanctions relief remains off the table

With the reserve release failing to calm prices, attention has turned to Russian oil as a potential source of additional supply.

The US Treasury last week granted Indian refiners a 30-day waiver to purchase Russian crude from vessels already stranded at sea, though the measure expires on 4 April and deliberately excludes new shipments.

Following the G7 emergency discussions on Wednesday, French President Emmanuel Macron stated that the group had agreed “the situation does not justify lifting any sanctions” on Russia, emphasising the need to increase global production instead.

The contrast between Washington’s narrow waiver and the G7’s firm collective position leaves little prospect of sanctions relief acting as a meaningful pressure valve, a view shared by analysts.

“Any sanction relief for Russia would see some marginal supply increases, but again not enough, with Russia’s oil output having held up well in recent years despite sanctions,” Warren Patterson of ING told Euronews.

$140-$150 oil barrel possible if conflict is prolonged

Should tensions persist, analysts warn prices could climb substantially higher.

Oxford Economics identifies $140 per barrel as the threshold at which the global economy tips into mild recession, reducing world GDP by 0.7% by year-end and pushing the UK, the Eurozone and Japan into contraction.

The managing director of the IMF, Kristalina Georgieva, also stated that every 10% increase in oil prices, provided they persist for most of the year, will push up global inflation by 0.4% and reduce worldwide economic output by as much as 0.2%.

“The risk is stark,” Patterson warned. “It’s only a matter of time before we see oil prices hitting fresh record highs if the conflict is not swiftly and decisively resolved.”

The IEA’s intervention has provided a temporary buffer, but with little visible impact on prices.

The surge in oil prices triggered by the war in Iran is increasingly becoming a major concern for global central banks, which are closely monitoring the potential economic and financial consequences of the shock.

More than a week of conflict in the Middle East has disrupted energy supply routes and pushed crude prices sharply higher, raising fresh fears about inflation. For policymakers already grappling with fragile economic conditions, the oil spike presents a complex policy dilemma.

Historically, oil shocks have posed a difficult challenge for central banks. Rising energy prices can drive inflation higher while simultaneously weakening consumer spending and business activity by raising costs. In such circumstances, policymakers face an uncomfortable choice: tighten policy to control inflation or ease financial conditions to support economic growth and employment.

The current situation could potentially produce both outcomes at once, creating a scenario where inflation rises even as economic demand weakens a combination that complicates monetary policy decisions.

Inflation Versus Economic Growth

Central banks traditionally respond to inflationary pressures by raising interest rates or maintaining tighter monetary policy. Some policymakers argue that responding quickly to inflation triggered by an oil shock can prevent inflation expectations from becoming entrenched and reduce longer-term economic damage.

Others, however, advocate “looking through” temporary energy-driven price spikes, arguing that aggressive tightening could unnecessarily damage economic growth. This approach gained prominence after the pandemic, when many central banks initially viewed inflation as temporary a judgment widely criticised in hindsight.

The decision facing policymakers now depends on several uncertainties, including how long the conflict lasts, how severely energy supplies are disrupted, and whether governments intervene with subsidies or price caps to protect consumers.

Given these unknowns, many central banks may prefer to adopt a cautious approach, waiting to see how markets and economic conditions evolve before making significant policy adjustments.

Financial Stability Risks Enter the Picture

Beyond inflation and growth concerns, central banks must also consider a third responsibility that has gained prominence since the global financial crisis: financial stability.

Senior policymakers worry that the oil shock could expose vulnerabilities that have been building in global financial markets for years. A large macroeconomic disturbance involving energy prices, inflation, interest rates and currency volatility could trigger a broader financial stress event.

Much of the concern centres on the growing role of “shadow banking” institutions, financial intermediaries operating outside traditional banking regulation. These entities have become increasingly important providers of credit to companies and governments.

One major area of focus is the rapid expansion of private credit funds, which now manage more than $3 trillion globally. These funds allow asset managers to lend directly to businesses, often outside the scrutiny of public markets or traditional banking standards.

Regulators worry that during a major shock, investors could rapidly withdraw funds from these vehicles, potentially creating liquidity problems for borrowers and spillover risks for banks that help finance or manage the funds.

Pressure in Bond and Repo Markets

Another major source of concern lies in government bond markets, where highly leveraged hedge funds have become increasingly active. Many of these funds use repurchase agreements, or “repo” markets, to borrow money and finance large trades involving government bonds.

These strategies often rely on exploiting small price differences between cash bonds and futures contracts, but they involve substantial leverage. While such activity can help smooth government financing, it can also create systemic vulnerabilities during periods of market stress.

The Financial Stability Board, which monitors risks to the global financial system for the G20, warned earlier this year that sudden deleveraging in repo markets could disrupt sovereign bond markets.

More than $16 trillion in repo transactions backed by government bonds were outstanding last year, with about 60% concentrated in the United States. A sudden withdrawal of leveraged investors could therefore have significant ripple effects across global financial markets.

New Fragilities: Stablecoins and Technology Stocks

Regulators are also monitoring emerging risks linked to digital finance. Stablecoins cryptocurrencies pegged to traditional currencies such as the U.S. dollar have grown rapidly and are increasingly investing reserves in government bonds.

With the stablecoin market now worth roughly $300 billion and expanding, any loss of confidence in these assets could trigger large-scale sales of the bonds that back them. Such an event could add stress to already volatile financial markets.

At the same time, some investors remain concerned about high valuations and heavy market concentration in the rapidly growing artificial intelligence sector, which could amplify market volatility during periods of economic uncertainty.

Analysis: Oil Shock Could Trigger Wider Financial Stress

The Iran war oil shock illustrates how geopolitical crises can interact with financial vulnerabilities to create broader economic risks.

Higher energy prices directly increase inflation and strain household finances. At the same time, they can force central banks to reconsider interest-rate policies, potentially leading to higher borrowing costs and greater volatility in financial markets.

Such conditions could expose weaknesses in highly leveraged sectors of the financial system, particularly in shadow banking, hedge funds and digital financial markets.

Although previous shocks including the economic turmoil following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine did not ultimately trigger a major financial crisis, policymakers remain cautious. The brief turmoil in the U.S. regional banking sector in 2023 demonstrated how quickly financial stress can emerge when economic conditions shift.

If oil prices remain elevated and central banks are forced to respond aggressively, the resulting tightening of financial conditions could amplify existing vulnerabilities across markets.

For now, the disturbances appear manageable. But the combination of geopolitical conflict, energy market disruption and financial fragility ensures that central banks will continue to watch the situation with increasing concern.

With information from Reuters.

Two foreign tankers were seen ablaze in Iraqi territorial waters after a strike near the al-Faw port. Authorities say they evacuated 25 crew members but have confirmed at least one death and are battling to control the flames.

Caracas, March 11, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Energy conglomerates Chevron and Shell are reportedly securing major oil deals in Venezuela following the recent pro-business reform of the country’s Hydrocarbon Law.

According to Reuters, joint venture Petropiar, where Chevron holds a minority stake, will expand its operations into the Ayacucho 8 bloc of Venezuela’s Orinoco Oil Belt. 

Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA completed exploration and appraisal of the 510 square-kilometer area located south of Petropiar’s current operations, but its development has been limited. Under the agreement, Chevron looks to significantly expand its extra-heavy crude output from the Orinoco Oil Belt, which holds three-quarters of Venezuela’s oil reserves.

Chevron is reportedly looking to secure reduced royalties and taxes under the recently reformed Hydrocarbon Law in order to launch operations in the new area. Petropiar currently produces 90,000 barrels per day (bpd) of upgraded Hamaca crude. PDVSA’s joint ventures with Chevron have a total present output of around 250,000 bpd.

In January, Venezuela’s National Assembly approved a legislative overhaul that significantly improved conditions and benefits for private corporations in the oil and natural gas sector. Royalty and income tax levies, previously set at 30 and 50 percent, respectively, can now be slashed at the Venezuelan executive’s discretion.

In addition, joint venture minority partners can directly manage crude operations and sales, while legal disputes can be taken to international arbitration instances. Furthermore, PDVSA can also lease out projects to private operators in exchange for a percentage of the oil output.

Under the latter model, Shell is reportedly set to take over operations in PDVSA’s Punta de Mata division in eastern Monagas state, one of the most historically productive and profitable regions for Venezuela’s oil industry. The division produced over 400,000 bpd of light and medium crude grades in the 2000s but recent production was around 90,000 bpd.

The London-based multinational, which had a strong presence in the Venezuelan energy sector throughout the twentieth century, is likewise interested in capturing and processing natural gas that is currently flared in oil extraction processes. 

Shell is additionally set to lead the Dragon offshore natural gas project alongside Trinidad and Tobago’s National Gas Corporation (NGC) in Venezuelan waters. The Nicolás Maduro government had suspended all joint initiatives with Trinidad due to its administration’s support for Washington’s Caribbean military buildup and threats against Venezuela last year.

Since the January 3 US military strikes and kidnapping of President Maduro, the acting Venezuelan authorities led by Delcy Rodríguez have fast-tracked a diplomatic rapprochement with the Trump administration while also vowing to “adapt” legislation to attract foreign investment. Following the hydrocarbon reform, a new mining law has also been preliminarily approved by the Venezuelan parliament.

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum have visited Venezuela in recent weeks and hailed the investment opportunities in oil and minerals for US conglomerates.

Since January, the Trump administration has taken control of Venezuelan oil exports, with crude shipments handled by commodity traders Vitol and Trafigura and proceeds deposited in accounts run by the US Treasury. US authorities so far have only returned US $500 million, out of a reported $2 billion agreement, to the Caribbean nation.

The White House has also issued a number of licenses in an effort to boost US involvement in the Venezuelan energy sector, including limited waivers to export inputs and technology. In addition, Washington has allowed several corporations to negotiate agreements with Caracas while mandating that contracts be subject to US jurisdiction and that all royalty, tax and dividend payments be made to US Treasury-run accounts.

Alongside Chevron and Shell, the other companies with early access to the Venezuelan energy sector are BP, Eni, Maurel & Prom, and Repsol. The latter two held meetings with Rodríguez in February to discuss investment opportunities, while ExxonMobil has announced plans to send a delegation to the country in the coming weeks.

Venezuela’s oil production rebounded in February, with OPEC secondary sources registering an output of 903,000 bpd, up from 823,000 bpd in January. A US naval blockade since December had forced PDVSA to cut back production before exports began to flow again under Washington’s control. The oil sector remains under US financial sanctions.

For its part, PDVSA reported a February output of 1.02 million bpd, up from 924,000 bpd the prior month. The direct and secondary measurements have differed over time due to disagreements over the inclusion of natural gas liquids and condensates.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Fusagasugá, Colombia.

Global currency and commodity markets stabilised slightly on Tuesday after a volatile start to the week triggered by the war involving Iran, United States and Israel. The U.S. dollar steadied against major currencies after earlier declines, following remarks from U.S. President Donald Trump that the conflict could end “very soon.”

Financial markets had been thrown into turmoil a day earlier amid fears that a prolonged war could trigger a major global energy shock. The conflict has disrupted oil and gas exports through the critical Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping route for global energy supplies.

Although markets calmed somewhat after Trump’s comments, the broader environment remains highly uncertain as investors continue to assess the potential economic fallout from the conflict.

Dollar Holds Ground as Oil Prices Ease

In Asian trading, the U.S. dollar was largely steady against other major currencies after retreating from the highs reached during Monday’s market turbulence.

The currency traded at around 157.73 yen against the Japanese yen and about $1.1632 against the euro, reflecting a stabilisation following the sharp movements seen earlier.

Meanwhile, oil prices remained elevated but declined from the dramatic peaks reached at the start of the week. Brent crude traded at roughly $93 per barrel, still significantly higher than levels before the outbreak of the war but well below Monday’s surge toward $120.

The pullback in oil prices helped ease immediate concerns about a severe energy shock, although analysts caution that volatility could continue if the conflict escalates again.

Investors Remain Cautious

Despite the relative calm in currency markets, analysts say investors are far from convinced that the crisis is nearing resolution.

Rodrigo Catril, a currency strategist at National Australia Bank, warned that markets could continue to experience sudden shifts in sentiment as geopolitical developments unfold.

According to Catril, it remains unclear whether the Iranian leadership would be willing to pursue de-escalation, suggesting that the risk of renewed market volatility remains high.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran dismissed Trump’s suggestion that the conflict could end quickly, describing the remarks as “nonsense.”

Risk-Sensitive Currencies Under Pressure

Currencies closely linked to global economic sentiment weakened as investors remained cautious.

The Australian dollar slipped to around $0.7063, while the New Zealand dollar fell to roughly $0.5912. These currencies often decline during periods of geopolitical uncertainty or when investors shift toward safer assets.

The dollar, by contrast, has benefited from its traditional role as a safe-haven currency during times of crisis. The escalation of the conflict and disruption to energy markets prompted investors to move funds into U.S. assets, supporting the currency.

The British pound recovered from losses earlier in the week to trade around $1.3434.

Energy Prices and Global Growth Concerns

Investors remain concerned that sustained high energy prices could slow global economic growth. Rising oil costs increase expenses for businesses and households, effectively acting as a tax on economic activity.

At the same time, higher energy prices could complicate monetary policy by pushing inflation upward and making it harder for central banks to lower interest rates.

Analysts at Deutsche Bank noted that a broader market sell-off in risk assets would likely require several conditions to occur simultaneously: persistently high oil prices, a shift in central bank policy expectations and clear evidence of a slowing global economy.

Strategist Henry Allen said markets are now significantly closer to those thresholds than they were just a week ago, though the full conditions for a major downturn have not yet materialised.

Analysis: Markets Brace for Prolonged Volatility

The market reaction to the Iran war underscores how closely global financial conditions are tied to geopolitical developments in the Middle East.

While Trump’s comments about a possible quick end to the conflict helped stabilise markets temporarily, the underlying risks remain substantial. The disruption of energy supplies through the Strait of Hormuz continues to threaten global oil flows and could trigger renewed price spikes if the conflict intensifies.

For investors, the situation presents a delicate balance. On one hand, hopes for de-escalation could stabilise energy prices and reduce pressure on financial markets. On the other, continued fighting or further disruptions to oil shipments could quickly reignite volatility across currencies, commodities and equities.

Until there is clearer evidence of either de-escalation or escalation, markets are likely to remain highly sensitive to political developments, with the dollar continuing to benefit from its role as a global safe haven.

With information from Reuters.

Attacks on multiple commercial ships in the waters around Iran on Wednesday increased global energy concerns, pushed nations to unleash strategic oil reserves and sparked fresh critiques of the Trump administration’s readiness for a war it started.

As Trump administration and U.S. military officials continued to claim increasing success and advantage in the conflict — and authorities downplayed a reported threat of drone attacks on California — leaders around the world scrambled to respond to the latest attacks and the International Energy Agency’s call for the largest ever release of strategic oil reserves by its members to help stem energy price spikes.

President Trump also faced renewed questions about a deadly strike on an Iranian elementary school at the start of the war, after the New York Times reported Wednesday that a military investigation had determined the U.S. was responsible.

“I don’t know about it,” Trump said when asked about the report.

In an address Wednesday morning, IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said energy shipments through the Strait of Hormuz had “all but stopped” amid the conflict, driving massive global competition for oil and gas in wealthier countries and fuel rationing in poorer nations.

He said the IEA’s 32 member nations have brought a “sense of urgency and solidarity” to recent discussions on the matter, and had unanimously agreed to “launch the largest ever release of emergency oil stocks in our agency’s history,” making 400 million barrels of oil available.

However, he said the most needed change is the “resumption of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.”

A vendor pumps petrol from Iranian fuel oil tankers for resale near the Bashmakh border crossing between Iraq and Iran.

(Ozan Kose / AFP/Getty Images)

Several countries, including Germany, Austria and Japan, had already confirmed their plans to release reserves.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on any U.S. plans to release its strategic reserves, or how much would be released. The U.S. is an IEA member.

Trump told reporters Wednesday that the U.S. has hit Iran “harder than virtually any country in history has been hit,” including by wiping out its naval fleet and eliminating other vessels capable of laying mines, and that he believes oil companies should resume shipments through the strait despite the recent attacks.

U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum backed the idea of releasing oil reserves in a Fox News interview.

“Certainly these are the kinds of moments that these reserves are used for, because what we have here is not a shortage of energy in the world; we’ve got a transit problem, which is temporary,” Burgum said. “When you have a temporary transit problem that we’re resolving militarily and diplomatically — which we can resolve and will resolve — this is the perfect time to think about releasing some of those, to take some pressure off of the global price.”

Burgum said that while Iran is “holding the entire world hostage economically by threatening to close the strait,” Trump has made the consequences of such actions “very clear,” and “there’s a lot of options between ourselves and our allies in the region, including our Arab friends in the region, to make sure that those straits keep open and that energy keeps flowing for the global economy.”

The IEA did not provide details as to the release of the 400 million barrels, part of a broader reserve of some 1.2 billion barrels held by its members. It said the reserves “will be made available to the market over a time frame that is appropriate to the national circumstances of each Member country and will be supplemented by additional emergency measures by some countries.”

The agency said an average of 20 million barrels of crude oil and oil products transited the strait per day in 2025, and that options for bypassing the strait are “limited.”

While some tankers believed linked to Iran were still getting through the Strait of Hormuz, which under normal circumstances carries about 20% of the world’s oil and natural gas, Iranian officials threatened attacks on other vessels — saying they would not allow “even a single liter of oil” tied to the U.S., Israel or their allies through the channel, which connects to the Persian Gulf.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. and its powerful Navy would support commercial vessels and ensure the strait remains open to oil shipments, but that has not been the case.

Tankers wait off the Mediterranean coast of southern France on Wednesday.

(Thibaud Moritz / AFP/Getty Images)

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations center, run by the British military, reported at least three ships struck in the region Wednesday — including ships off the United Arab Emirates and a cargo ship that was struck by a projectile in the strait just north of Oman, setting it ablaze.

The Trump administration and the U.S. military, meanwhile, have been pushing out messaging about wiping out Iran’s ability to plant mines in the strait — posting dramatic videos of major strikes on tiny boats on small docks.

Adm. Brad Cooper, the leader of U.S. Central Command, said in a video posted to X on Wednesday morning that “in short, U.S. forces continue delivering devastating combat power against the Iranian regime.”

“I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: U.S. combat power is building, Iranian combat power is declining,” he said.

The U.S. has struck more than 60 Iranian ships, and just “took out the last of four Soleimani-class warships,” he said. “That’s an entire class of Iranian ships now out of the fight.”

Cooper said Iranian ballistic missile and drone attacks have “dropped drastically” since the start of the war, though “it’s worth pointing out that Iranian forces continue to target innocent civilians in gulf countries, while hiding behind their own people as they launch attacks from highly populated cities in Iran.”

He also addressed the attacks on commercial shipping in the region directly, saying that “for years, the Iranian regime has threatened commercial shipping and U.S. forces in international waters,” and that the U.S. military’s “mission is to end their ability to project power and harass shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.”

Other U.S. leaders called the U.S. war plan — and specifically its approach to protecting the Strait of Hormuz — into question.

In a series of posts to X late Tuesday, which he said followed a two-hour classified briefing on the war, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) slammed the administration’s plans as “incoherent and incomplete.”

Murphy wrote that the administration’s goals for the war seemed to be focused primarily on “destroying lots of missiles and boats and drone factories,” and without a clear plan for what to do when Iran — still led by “a hardline regime” — begins rebuilding that infrastructure, other than to continue bombing them. “Which is, of course, endless war,” he wrote.

Murphy also specifically criticized the administration’s plan for the Strait of Hormuz — which he said simply doesn’t exist.

“And on the Strait of Hormuz, they had NO PLAN,” he wrote. “I can’t go into more detail about how Iran gums up the Strait, but suffice it [to] say, right now, they don’t know how to get it safely back open. Which is unforgiveable, because this part of the disaster was 100% foreseeable.”

Ships in the strait remained under threat of various forms of attack Wednesday, as did much of the region as the war raged on.

There was an attack on a U.S. Embassy operations center at Baghdad’s airport, which officials attributed to a drone launched by Iranian proxies based in Iraq. No casualties were reported.

Lebanon’s Health Ministry reported the death toll there — from fighting between Israel and Iranian-backed Hezbollah fighters — had risen to 634 since last week, including 91 children. Another 1,500 people had been wounded, the ministry said.

Iranian authorities have said U.S. and Israeli attacks have killed 1,255 people since Feb. 28. That includes many Iranian leaders, including then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. U.S. officials have said Iranian attacks in the region have killed seven U.S. service members, with another 140 wounded.

CBS News reported Wednesday that dozens of those injuries were sustained by service members in the March 1 Iranian drone attack on a tactical operations center in Kuwait — which is also where six of the seven deaths occurred.

The outlet reported that the attack was more severe than the Trump administration has revealed, with more than 30 military members still in hospitals Tuesday with a range of battle injuries including “brain trauma, shrapnel wounds and burns.”

Threats extended beyond the Middle East, too — including to California, where law enforcement agencies were warned by federal authorities that Iran “allegedly aspired to conduct a surprise attack” on California using drones launched from a vessel off the U.S. coast.

However, sources told The Times that advisory was cautionary and not backed by credible intelligence.

Times staff writer Gavin J. Quinton, in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.

March 11 (UPI) — The International Energy Agency agreed to take emergency action and release 400 million barrels of oil into the market, the coalition announced Wednesday.

The 32 members of the IEA unanimously agreed to tap into their emergency reserves in response to the strain on the oil market from the war in Iran.

“The oil market challenges we are facing are unprecedented in scale, therefore I am very glad that IEA member countries have responded with an emergency collective action of unprecedented size,” Fatih Birol, IEA executive director, said in a statement.

“Oil markets are global so the response to major disruptions needs to be global too. Energy security is the founding mandate of the IEA, and I am pleased that IEA members are showing strong solidarity in taking decisive action together.”

The IEA said oil will be released to the market “over a timeframe that is appropriate to the national circumstances of each member country.”

The release of emergency reserves is the sixth in the coalition’s history since being founded in 1974.

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi said Wednesday that Japan plans to begin releasing oil from its stockpile possibly next week. Japan is an IEA member.

Oil prices soared after the United States and Israel launched military operations against Iran. Iran has threatened vessels traveling through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical route in the oil trade, in response.

About 25% of the world’s seaborne oil is transported through the Strait of Hormuz.

The IEA has an emergency stockpile of more than 1.2 billion barrels of oil, There are 600 million additional barrels obligated by member governments.

Warning comes as 400 million barrels of oil are being released from global reserves during waterway’s closure.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) says it will not allow “a litre of oil” through the Strait of Hormuz as the closure of the key Gulf waterway continues to roil global energy markets during the US-Israeli war on Iran.

A spokesperson for the IRGC’s Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters said on Wednesday that any vessel linked to the United States and Israel or their allies “will be considered a legitimate target”.

“You will not be able to artificially lower the price of oil. Expect oil at $200 per barrel,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “The price of oil depends on regional security, and you are the main source of insecurity in the region.”

Global oil prices have fluctuated wildly this week during continued US-Israeli attacks against Iran, which has retaliated by firing missiles and drones at targets across the wider Middle East.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil supplies transit, and production slowdowns in some Gulf countries have raised concerns of further disruptions.

Concerns around the duration of the war, which began on February 28 and has shown no sign of abating, are also adding to uncertainty, sending oil prices soaring.

On Wednesday, three ships were hit by projectiles in the Strait of Hormuz, maritime security and risk firms said, including a Thai-flagged cargo vessel that came under attack about 11 nautical miles (18km) north of Oman.

Release of oil reserves

World leaders, including members of the Group of Seven (G7) and the European Union, have been mulling what action to take in response to the war’s impact on global economies.

Christian Bueger, a professor of international relations at the University of Copenhagen and an expert in maritime security, said Europe will be facing “a major energy supply crisis” if the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened.

“For the shipping industry right now, it’s impossible to go through the Strait of Hormuz,” Bueger told Al Jazeera. “And if there are not stronger signals in the near future that they can at least try to go through the strait, then we are looking at a major shipping crisis, which can last weeks if not months.”

On Wednesday, the International Energy Agency (IEA) announced that its 32 member countries had unanimously agreed to release 400 million barrels of oil from their emergency reserves to try to lower prices.

“This is a major action aiming to alleviate the immediate impacts of the disruption in markets,” IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said during an address from the agency’s headquarters in Paris.

“But to be clear, the most important thing for a return to stable flows of oil and gas is the resumption of transit through the Strait of Hormuz,” he added.

The reserve supplies will be made available “over a timeframe that is appropriate” for each member state, the IEA said in a statement without providing details.

German Economy and Energy Minister Katherina Reiche said earlier in the day that the country would comply with the release while Austria also said it would make part of its emergency oil reserve available and extend its national strategic gas reserve.

Meanwhile, Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry said it would release about 80 million barrels from its private and national oil reserves.

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi said the country, which gets about 70 percent of its oil imports through the Strait of Hormuz, would begin releasing the reserves on Monday.

The South Korean government is “closely involved” in discussions with the International Energy Agency (IEA) over the agency’s reported proposal to release strategic oil reserves to help stabilize soaring oil prices, Seoul officials said Wednesday.

Officials at the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Resources confirmed Seoul’s participation in the reported IEA discussions to Yonhap News Agency, following media reports saying that the IEA has proposed the largest-ever release of oil reserves to its 32 member countries, including South Korea.

According to the report by the Wall Street Journal, IEA members are expected to soon decide on the proposal in an extraordinary meeting.

“South Korea is closely involved in discussions over a coordinated release of strategic oil reserves by the IEA,” a ministry official said.

The country currently holds around 1.9 billion barrels of oil reserves, which is enough to last more than 200 days.

“We have yet to decide how much oil will be released from our reserves with the IEA’s decision,” a ministry official said.

The Seoul government has released its strategic oil reserves on five occasions since 1990, all through international coordination.

The occasions included the 1991 Gulf War, the 2011 Libya crisis and the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine War in 2022.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.