Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent laid out the Trump administration’s strategy for managing surging energy prices and market instability on Thursday, arguing that a coordinated approach is helping contain the economic fallout from the escalating U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran.
Appearing on Fox Business with Maria Bartiromo, Bessent acknowledged the turbulence in global markets following Iran’s attack on a key Qatari gas facility, which has sent oil and gas prices sharply higher. Even so, he maintained that the administration is carefully balancing military pressure with efforts to stabilize energy supply.
Bartiromo opened the interview by noting that President Donald Trump has been aggressive in targeting Iran’s military infrastructure while deliberately avoiding direct strikes on oil and gas facilities. Bessent confirmed that approach, emphasizing that recent operations—now nearing their third week—have intensified without crossing that line.
“Last night was the biggest night for strikes thus far in this campaign,” Bessent said, adding that the administration continues to escalate military action while keeping broader consequences in mind.
He pointed specifically to Kharg Island, a critical hub for Iran’s oil exports, where U.S. forces conducted precision strikes against military targets while leaving energy infrastructure untouched. By doing so, Bessent said, Iranian oil has continued to flow out of the Gulf, helping prevent a more severe disruption.
The strategy reflects a broader effort to avoid turning a military conflict into a full-scale energy crisis. Still, the strain is evident. As Bessent spoke, oil prices were approaching $100 a barrel, and U.S. markets were sliding, with major indexes down amid concerns over supply constraints.
To counter those pressures, Bessent described a series of measures aimed at boosting available oil. He said the administration moved to unsanction Russian oil, tapping into roughly 130 million barrels already on the water, and indicated that Iranian oil shipments—estimated at about 140 million barrels—could also be released.
“In essence, we will be using the Iranian barrels against the Iranians to keep the price down,” Bessent said, framing the move as a way to offset short-term shortages tied to disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz.
He estimated that these combined supplies could provide 10 days to two weeks of additional oil, with the potential to stabilize markets for even longer depending on demand and conditions. The administration has also approved what Bessent described as the largest coordinated release from strategic reserves in history—400 million barrels—with the option of further releases if needed.
Bessent stressed that this approach amounts to a “physical intervention” in markets by increasing supply, rather than manipulating prices through financial mechanisms. He was clear that the Treasury has no plans to intervene in futures markets, despite speculation to the contrary.
“We’re absolutely not doing that,” he said, emphasizing that price swings are a natural part of volatile conditions. Drawing on decades of experience, Bessent suggested that market participants often look for outside explanations after losses, even when none exist.
The administration’s broader message is one of control and preparedness, pointing to U.S. energy independence as a key advantage. Bessent noted that while allies rely heavily on oil flowing through the Strait of Hormuz, the United States now operates as an exporter, giving it greater flexibility.
Still, the situation underscores the inherent challenges of managing a war with global economic consequences. Even with careful planning, disruptions to energy infrastructure—whether direct or indirect—can ripple quickly through markets, affecting prices, investments, and consumer costs.
Bartiromo captured that tension, noting the need to balance energy stability with continued pressure on Iran. Bessent agreed, suggesting the administration has “lots of levers” left to pull.
But as the conflict enters its third week, the stakes remain high. While officials emphasize strategy and supply, the broader reality is harder to ignore: war has a way of extending beyond the battlefield, shaping economic outcomes in ways that are difficult to fully control.
[READ MORE:
