Trump's Energy Strategy: Dominance in Gas and Oil Amid Global Conflict

Behind the unexpected conflicts initiated by Donald Trump lies a strategic foundation that he encapsulated at the start of his term with the phrase "drill baby drill," referring to the controversial fracking technique for energy extraction. This strategy evolved into the concept of "energy dominance." Through his agreements with Saudi Arabia, Trump has successfully maintained oil prices at a level that is profitable for U.S. producers yet remains affordable for consumers. However, his true strength appears to lie in the gas market, where the United States holds a significant position. Historically, previous U.S. leaders have refrained from involving the country in conflicts in the Gulf region due to the financial burdens placed on citizens who ultimately bear the cost through heightened fuel prices. Although the United States is indeed an oil producer, the global benchmark for crude prices dictates prices at U.S. gas stations. Nevertheless, Trump, who seems to have a better grasp of oil market dynamics than in other areas, recognized the opportunity to intervene in the oil market without incurring substantial costs, given the prevailing circumstances. As long as conflict does not persist beyond a month, Saudi Arabia's capacity to pump oil through its pipelines remains robust, and Trump's mere suggestion of escorting oil tankers has kept the price of crude oil below $80 per barrel. Just two days before the commencement of military action against Iran, the White House published an article boasting of the energy dominance achieved by Trump during his first year in office. A significant achievement was the massive export of liquefied natural gas (LNG), which is intricately linked to tensions in the Middle East. The White House announced that in 2025, the United States set a record by exporting more than 100 million metric tons of LNG in a single year, thus becoming the first nation to reach such a milestone. The statement anticipates continued growth in exports, projecting that the U.S. will meet new demands through the relaxation of restrictions on drilling. This control over the global LNG market, with the U.S. positioned as a leading producer, provides Washington with significant leverage to conduct an economic war. Qatar's LNG company has temporarily halted its operations, removing 20% of its production from the market. With Russia under sanctions, few alternatives remain for gas supplies outside of U.S. options. Furthermore, the U.S. Henry Hub gas price index is largely insulated from international fluctuations, thus minimizing domestic impacts. Owning a dominant position in the gas market offers the United States a strategic edge that surpasses that of oil. Gas is viewed as a transitional energy source by the European Union, relied upon heavily for electricity generation, particularly in countries like Germany. Since the onset of the war in Ukraine, America's role has expanded dramatically, as the U.S. is now positioned as the arbiter of global energy markets, according to Javier Moret, an independent energy market consultant with 25 years of experience in the LNG industry. Selling energy at higher prices could assist Washington in mitigating its trade deficit with other nations in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling on Trump's tariffs. While it may not significantly alter the lives of ordinary citizens, it presents a major win for the MAGA agenda as the midterm elections draw near. This increased energy revenue will also help account for the anticipated high financial costs associated with military engagements, which are likely to negate the perceived savings from the Department of Government Efficiency's budgetary measures. Professor Antonio Fonfría from Complutense University notes that the 12-day conflict of 2025, resulting from attacks on Iran, incurred costs of approximately $750 million per day for Israel. Based on this conflict, Fonfría estimates that the current operation could cost around $1 billion daily. Much of the budget is consumed by aircraft carriers, which, according to strategic consultancy SP STRATUM, together with air operations, could range from $65 to $8 million per day depending on the intensity of military actions. Until now, China has relied on Iran for 13.5% of its oil and 4% from Venezuela. With both sources disrupted, the cumulative loss of oil imports amounts to one-fifth. This scenario illustrates how the U.S. can exert pressure on China by restricting access to critical energy supplies, especially as analysts indicate that Beijing is gaining ground in economic competition. For immediate gas needs, China would likely turn to U.S. supplies unless it opts to tap into Russian sources or increase coal consumption as a fallback. In the current geopolitical landscape, Russia remains one of the few countries capable of boosting gas production due to its extensive pipeline networks to China. The combination of a weakened economy, rising gas prices, and increasing demand from Asia could serve to replenish Moscow's finances significantly. Moreover, Moscow stands to gain if the U.S. and Europe deplete their energy reserves to reinforce their positions in Ukraine. Conversely, Japan, lacking pipeline access and coal resources, finds itself in a precarious situation, affected by diminished nuclear capacity and heavy reliance on imports. South Korea also faces challenges amid these global energy disruptions. Amidst Europe’s severe dependence on gas, current disruptions coincide with a season where renewable energy output is typically robust, suggesting potential mitigation as reservoirs fill and longer daylight hours aid production. Stay informed with our weekly newsletter for more English-language coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition. Related Sources: • Source 1 • Source 2