It is said that before the strikes on Iran, the Trump administration held the prevailing view that the situation would not significantly shake the global energy market. The New York Times notes that this situation has strengthened the misconception that "everything is under control."
According to sources, some calculations in the White House are based on the assumption that oil prices will jump only for a short period of time, then fall again. There was also speculation that Iran would be content with a limited response, as in previous tensions. It is noted that this attitude led to a lack of deep assessment of greater risks - especially threats related to energy supply and infrastructure.
The most difficult point is the sea routes. The analysis states that warnings about Iran potentially obstructing ship traffic were not taken seriously. We are talking about the Strait of Hormuz - a huge part of the world's oil and fuel passes through it. Reuters and other analysts note that around 20% of global oil flow flows through this strait, so any obstacle there immediately hits the price and supply chains.
It is said that some White House officials held the view that Iran would deliberately "not ignite" a major crisis that would severely damage its own economy. However, according to observers, at this point, one important aspect has not been sufficiently taken into account: Tehran can use strategic energy routes precisely as a means of pressure. This increases sensitivity not only in the oil market but also in the diesel and logistics markets - Reuters wrote that shifts in diesel supply and prices could increase the risk of global economic slowdown.
As a result, decisions were made based more on short-term political and military logic, the analysis says. However, as events shift in a different direction, the problem may rise above the level of "local conflict" and turn into a larger economic upheaval. Against this backdrop, Reuters noted a sharp increase in oil and gas transportation costs and record tanker prices on some routes.
In short, the analysts are concerned about one thing: an incorrect assessment of energy risks could change the dynamics of the regional conflict and exacerbate its impact on the global economy. Every signal around Hormuz is not just geopolitics, but a "big button" that reaches gasoline, logistics, prices, and ordinary people's wallets.
Read “Zamin” on Telegram!
