A plan described by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Thursday as using Iranian oil against Iran itself has captured global attention, raising fundamental questions about the logic and limits of economic warfare. Bessent revealed the administration is considering temporarily lifting sanctions on approximately 140 million barrels of Iranian crude stranded on tankers, redirecting it to global markets to offset the price surge created by Iran’s own Hormuz blockade.
The Hormuz blockade has removed between 10 and 14 million barrels of daily supply from global oil markets for close to two weeks, pushing crude prices above $100 per barrel. The disruption has been a defining moment in global energy markets and has generated intense interest in Washington’s response strategy.
Bessent framed the potential Iranian crude waiver as a logical extension of the principle of using an adversary’s resources against its own strategy. He said the approximately 140 million barrels of Iranian crude on tankers could, if freed from sanctions, provide roughly two weeks of supply relief to the global market during the US campaign against the Hormuz blockade.
The Treasury has previously applied a of this logic to Russian oil, issuing a waiver that redirected approximately 130 million barrels to global markets. An additional unilateral US Strategic Petroleum Reserve release beyond the G7’s 400 million barrel commitment is also being planned, alongside a firm stance against financial market intervention.
Global attention has focused not just on the supply logic but on the strategic paradox. Compliance experts and national security analysts pointed out that using Iranian oil against Iran simultaneously benefits Tehran financially, providing revenue for military activities and proxy support. Critics noted that the plan’s attention-capturing framing obscures a fundamental contradiction: you cannot effectively use a country’s resources against it while also providing that country with the financial benefit of those resources.