Oil, Dollars and Venezuela: How the Iran War Could Strengthen America

Written By James Taylor
1. Venezuela’s Oil Deal Adds a New Dimension to Trump’s Iran Gamble

The Iran War’s Uneven Winners: America, China, Russia and Europe

The Dollar Behind the Barrel

US energy exports and access to Venezuelan reserves give Washington leverage, but dollar demand and oil profits cannot erase the costs of war.

European energy buyers have been sending more business to the United States while war unsettles supplies from the Gulf. In the second quarter of 2026, America supplied 18.8 per cent of the European Union’s petroleum oil imports and 63.2 per cent of its liquefied natural gas imports, according to Eurostat.

Those figures help explain why a conflict that raises American fuel bills can still strengthen American power. The United States produces and exports energy on a scale that many of its allies and competitors cannot match. When reliable supplies become scarce, that position becomes more valuable.

So is America actually winning geopolitically from the Iran war? In parts of the energy contest, it has gained a meaningful advantage. The broader verdict remains open. Selling more oil, weakening an adversary and increasing a trading partner’s reliance are different achievements from securing a durable peace at an acceptable cost.

The strongest sympathetic reading of Donald Trump’s approach is that he understands this distinction between economic comfort and strategic leverage. His Venezuela policy offers concrete evidence of an effort to expand American influence over energy. What the evidence does not establish is that the Iran war was designed as a secret mechanism to rescue the dollar or eliminate federal debt.

Why an Oil Shock Can Increase American Power

An importing country needs enough affordable fuel to keep its economy moving. An exporting country can also earn income by supplying everyone else. America occupies both positions: it has enormous domestic consumption and extensive production, refining and export capacity.

That combination creates an uneven exposure to disruption. American drivers suffer when prices rise. American producers may earn more. Foreign manufacturers that import most of their fuel can face higher costs without receiving an equivalent benefit from domestic extraction.

There is a relative advantage here. America can emerge stronger against a competitor even while its own economy suffers damage. That is a familiar feature of geopolitical competition, where the question often concerns who can absorb a shock for longer.

But relative advantage needs a sensible comparison. Some additional American exports would have occurred without war. Some buyers would have diversified anyway. To calculate the conflict’s net benefit, we would need to compare the actual outcome with a plausible world in which the war had not happened.

That calculation must include military expenditure, lost trade, inflation and the value of relationships damaged along the way. Export revenue alone cannot settle it.

How Countries Become More Reliant on US Energy

Dependence grows through practical decisions. A refinery secures a new supplier. A utility books cargoes of liquefied natural gas. A trader arranges financing and shipping. Repeated transactions can become long contracts, infrastructure investment and lasting commercial relationships.

American supply also avoids the need to pass through the Strait of Hormuz when it leaves US ports for Europe or Asia. That geographical difference matters when buyers are assessing the risk of interruption, even if the voyage itself remains expensive.

The Energy Information Administration’s figures for the week ending 24 April showed US crude exports reaching 6.44 million barrels a day. That was a weekly record, rather than proof of a permanently sustainable export rate. It nevertheless illustrated how strongly foreign demand could pull American barrels overseas.

Oil and gas should be distinguished. Crude can often be redirected between customers, subject to refinery requirements and transport costs. Gas dependence can become more persistent when import terminals, specialised ships and contracts are built around particular supply arrangements.

Europe’s high American share of liquefied natural gas imports therefore matters, but it does not mean America supplies that same share of all European gas. Pipeline imports and domestic production remain separate parts of the system.

Nor does buying American oil make a country politically obedient. Buyers can bargain, diversify and reduce consumption. The gain for Washington is greater relevance to their energy security, which may improve its negotiating position without giving it control over their governments.

Venezuela Gives Trump a More Concrete Strategic Argument

The Venezuelan agreement makes this discussion more substantial than a theory about who benefits from higher prices.

In its 31 August account, the White House described concessions covering 17 fields and approximately 65 billion barrels of proven reserves. It said the arrangement included a 35 per cent US government equity stake in the corporate parent of North American Blue Energy Partners, governance rights and access to production.

The administration also described a right to buy 20 per cent of output at production cost and a right of first refusal over the remainder. These are the White House’s descriptions of the deal; their commercial value depends on implementation, enforceable rights and actual production.

Calling this American ownership of Venezuela’s entire oil industry would be inaccurate. The arrangement concerns specified assets and contractual rights. Reserves underground are also different from barrels that can be delivered next month.

Even with those limits, the strategic logic is clear. Access to nearby supply can give Washington an additional option when Middle Eastern routes become unreliable. Investment can tie production to American equipment, finance and refining relationships.

For Trump, that is a defensible achievement to pursue. A country gains bargaining room when it has more credible alternatives. The unanswered question is how quickly the promised capacity can be developed, and on what final economic terms.

Access to Reserves Is Only the Beginning

A large reserve estimate can create a misleading impression of immediate abundance. Extracting oil requires working wells, power, maintenance, transport and buyers equipped to process the resulting crude.

Venezuelan heavy oil adds technical demands. Some production needs lighter material mixed into it so it can flow and be transported. Refinery compatibility also matters: different grades cannot always replace one another without changing costs or output.

The US Treasury’s sanctions framework reflects this practical complexity. Its Venezuela permissions separately address oil transactions, diluents, services, investment and operations. Those distinctions show how much must happen between political access and a functioning export business.

The Energy Department’s September announcement of agreements involving Chevron, Eni and GE Vernova similarly linked oil development with investment and electricity infrastructure.

The potential advantage is therefore a supply option that can grow over time. It should be judged through completed investment and dependable deliveries, rather than by multiplying reserves by today’s oil price. That multiplication ignores extraction costs, the time needed to produce, taxes and the possibility that prices change.

Where the Dollar Fits Into the Strategy

Energy trading can reinforce the dollar’s international role because companies need a currency for invoicing, payment, financing and managing price risk. When those services are organised around dollars, using the same currency becomes convenient for the next transaction.

Consider a fuel importer receiving most of its income in a local currency. If its purchases are priced in dollars, it needs access to dollar funding or a way to exchange and hedge its currency. Its banks then need the capacity to support those operations.

That demand forms part of a much larger financial network. Dollar use extends across trade, lending, investment and reserves. American energy exports can support the network, but they did not create it and cannot sustain it alone.

The Federal Reserve’s 2025 review put the dollar at 58 per cent of disclosed official foreign exchange reserves in 2024, compared with 20 per cent for the euro and 2 per cent for China’s renminbi. Those are historical observations, not measurements of the war’s effect.

They also show why the simplest “petrodollar” explanation falls short. Dollar strength rests on financial market depth, usable assets and confidence in institutions as well as commodity transactions. Oil being priced in another currency would not instantly displace that system.

More Dollar Use Does Not Mean Automatic Dollar Control

There are several different questions hidden inside the claim that countries become dependent on the dollar.

A company may pay for oil in dollars without its government holding most reserves in dollars. A central bank may own US Treasury securities even when some national trade is settled in another currency. A business may borrow dollars while hedging its exchange-rate exposure.

These connections can reinforce one another, but they are not interchangeable.

Washington’s financial influence also depends on the institutions involved in a transaction and the reach of applicable sanctions. A dollar invoice is not, by itself, proof that the US government can dictate every subsequent commercial decision.

The favourable argument for Trump is narrower and stronger: expanding energy relationships can help keep American finance central to international commerce. That would make attempts to build rival networks more difficult.

There is a possible countereffect. Countries that fear supply pressure or financial restrictions may spend more to develop alternatives. Whether the war strengthens dollar reliance over the long term therefore depends partly on whether customers see the United States as a dependable partner.

Can This Help America Handle Its Debt?

Yes, through limited and indirect channels. It cannot make the debt disappear.

Stronger exports can support economic activity and taxable income. Demand for safe dollar assets can support demand for Treasury securities, helping the government finance its borrowing on better terms than it might otherwise obtain.

The key word is finance. Selling a Treasury bond raises money today and creates an obligation to repay it. It does not cancel an existing liability merely because the buyer is foreign.

Likewise, revenue earned by a private oil exporter belongs initially to that business. The federal government may receive taxes and other applicable payments, but it does not receive the entire sale price.

Potential income from a government equity holding is a separate matter. Any eventual dividends would need to be assessed against the arrangement’s obligations and risks. A headline reserve figure cannot be entered into the budget as spendable cash.

For scale, the Congressional Budget Office’s February baseline projected a federal deficit of 1.9 trillion dollars in fiscal 2026. That was a pre-war projection with specified policy assumptions, rather than a final account of the year.

It demonstrates the size of the challenge. Energy gains may improve America’s financial position at the margin. Claims that they offer a complete answer to persistent annual deficits require evidence far beyond an increase in oil exports.

Higher Oil Prices Can Also Worsen the Fiscal Problem

Energy inflation pushes in the other direction. Businesses face higher transport and production costs. Households have less money for other purchases. Governments may face pressure to provide relief.

If persistent inflation keeps borrowing costs higher, servicing and refinancing debt becomes more expensive. Any benefit from stronger demand for dollar assets must be weighed against that pressure.

Inflation can reduce the purchasing power of fixed nominal obligations, but it is an unreliable debt strategy. Investors can demand compensation, and many public spending commitments rise with prices or political pressure.

This creates a distinction between the interests of an oil producer and those of the country as a whole. A period of high prices can improve one company’s earnings while weakening consumer spending and complicating public finances.

The best outcome for Washington would be greater influence over reliable supply alongside stable prices. That would support customers’ economies as well as American exporters. A prolonged shortage is a much less convincing route to lasting national wealth.

China Faces Pressure, but Retains Options

China’s exposure comes from its need for imported energy and the vulnerability of maritime supply routes. Disruption can increase the cost of obtaining crude, complicate refinery operations and make inventories more valuable.

Pressure on Iranian exports can also reduce the availability of a particular source of supply. That strengthens the American position if it limits Beijing’s access to favourable terms or forces Chinese buyers into more expensive alternatives.

However, the leap from pressure to Chinese dependence on America is too large. China can seek supplies from several producers. It can alter refinery activity, draw stocks and reduce demand. Those responses have costs, but they preserve choices.

The timing matters too. A short interruption and years of unreliable access produce different investment decisions. A country may tolerate expensive replacement cargoes temporarily while using the experience to justify new infrastructure.

There is a further strategic risk for Washington. China’s strengths in batteries, electric vehicles and renewable energy equipment could become more valuable if expensive fuel accelerates substitution.

The US advantage is real where secure oil supply is scarce. Its durability depends partly on how quickly competitors can reduce the amount of oil they need.

Russia Complicates the Idea of a Clean American Victory

Russia is an energy exporter, so a rise in international prices can improve its position if it can sell sufficient volumes and retain the proceeds. Its actual gains depend on discounts, transport costs, sanctions and damage to production or refining.

That creates an awkward consequence for any argument that the Iran war is neatly weakening all American rivals. Pressure on one adversary can improve another adversary’s bargaining position.

Trump’s recent dispute with Ukraine over Russian fuel supplies illustrates the competing priorities. Increasing available supply can serve the immediate goal of easing prices while working against efforts to restrict Moscow’s revenue.

From a sympathetic perspective, Trump is making a practical choice between objectives rather than pretending they always align. A president has to consider American fuel costs as well as pressure on Russia.

But the trade-off remains. Cheaper or more available fuel is a benefit; additional room for Moscow is a cost. Calling both sides of that transaction an unqualified American victory would conceal the decision that has actually been made.

Europe Gains Security and Loses Bargaining Room

Europe’s position is different from Russia’s because many European economies rely heavily on imported energy. A price shock transfers income towards suppliers and raises costs for industry and households.

Eurostat’s second-quarter figures showed the value of EU petroleum oil imports rising 55.8 per cent compared with the monthly average in 2025, while volume was broadly stable. That comparison captures an expensive import bill rather than a comparable increase in physical consumption.

American supply provides an important alternative. The relationship has commercial value for both sides, and access to a large supplier can improve European resilience.

Concentration still matters. If European buyers rely heavily on one country for a category of energy, that supplier’s policies and market conditions become more consequential. Europe’s energy decisions then intersect more closely with its wider relationship with Washington.

Trump can reasonably regard increased American relevance as an advantage. European governments can reasonably seek more suppliers and lower consumption at the same time.

Those positions need not produce a confrontation. The strongest American relationship would give Europe a reason to keep buying voluntarily, even after the emergency passes.

Is This Trump’s Strategy or a Benefit He Is Exploiting?

The public evidence supports an intentional effort to expand energy influence. The Venezuela agreement is presented explicitly in those terms. Supply rights, governance provisions and investment policy are concrete instruments, rather than retrospective speculation.

It is also reasonable to interpret pressure on Iran’s revenue as economic coercion. The strategic importance of Kharg Island’s export infrastructure helps explain why energy sits close to the conflict’s military and diplomatic centre.

The larger claim requires more restraint. A policy can produce a useful consequence without that consequence having been its original purpose. Recognising an opportunity during a war is different from initiating the war to create it.

There is no established public evidence here of a single plan linking the conflict, Venezuelan concessions, compulsory dollar dependence and repayment of federal debt.

Trump deserves credit where his administration secures commercially useful rights and broadens supply options. That assessment does not require believing every disruption was anticipated or every economic cost deliberately chosen.

What Would Turn Leverage Into a Lasting Win?

The decisive test is whether America can convert emergency demand into reliable relationships after the immediate fear subsides.

That requires production that arrives on time, contracts customers trust and prices that do not cripple the economies buying the fuel. Venezuelan access must become working capacity. Greater financial influence must coexist with confidence in dollar assets.

The International Energy Agency’s October assessment provides a warning about the alternative. It forecast world oil demand falling by 2.6 million barrels a day on average in 2026 as restricted supplies, high fuel prices and a deteriorating economy took their toll.

An exporter can benefit from scarcity for a time. Persistent scarcity can destroy its customers’ ability to buy.

The most persuasive pro-Trump case therefore points towards a finish: use America’s supply position and expanded options to obtain a more favourable settlement, then make American energy valuable through dependable delivery. The next meaningful evidence of success will be barrels supplied and security restored, rather than another increase in the price of oil.

Sources

Next Reads

James Taylor
Previous

Egypt Moves Towards Saudi Defence Role as Houthi Attacks Escalate
Next

Trump Signs Russia Sanctions Into Law, Then Puts Key Measures on Hold