The U.S. president says Washington could remain engaged in Iran instead of leaving after the war, drawing comparisons with a controversial oil arrangement involving Venezuela.
U.S. President Donald Trump has suggested that the United States could remain in Iran after the current war and potentially benefit from the country’s oil resources, raising fresh questions about Washington’s long-term objectives in the conflict.
Speaking during a visit to Ireland on Sunday, Trump said the United States would eventually leave Iran unless Washington decided to stay and “keep the oil,” comparing the possibility with the U.S. approach to Venezuela.
The comments come as escalating tensions in the Middle East continue to shake global oil markets, with concerns growing over attacks on energy infrastructure and disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important oil shipping routes.
Trump nevertheless maintained that he expects the Iran war to end this year.
Trump: ‘We’ll ultimately get out of Iran’— or stay for the oil
Trump said Washington would ultimately withdraw from Iran unless it decided that remaining in the country and benefiting from its oil resources was in America’s interest.
His remarks introduced a potentially significant new dimension to the U.S. administration’s stated objectives in the conflict.
Trump compared the idea to a U.S. oil arrangement involving Venezuela, saying revenues generated from that deal had already more than covered the cost of the war.
The comments are likely to intensify debate over whether the United States’ goals in Iran extend beyond military and security objectives to include the country’s enormous energy resources.
Trump did not announce a formal policy to seize or control Iranian oil.
Instead, he presented staying in Iran and benefiting from its oil as one possible outcome.
Why Iran’s oil matters
Iran is one of the world’s major oil-producing countries and holds some of the largest proven petroleum reserves globally.
Its energy resources have long been at the centre of tensions between Tehran and Washington.
Any disruption to Iranian oil exports can have consequences beyond Iran itself, particularly when global markets are already under pressure.
The current crisis has added another layer of uncertainty.
The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of global oil supplies normally passes, has experienced a major decline in shipping activity amid attacks and security concerns.
That has pushed energy traders to closely monitor every development involving Iran and the wider Gulf region.
Oil prices are already under pressure
The geopolitical uncertainty has already contributed to a sharp rise in crude prices.
Oil prices moved above $100 a barrel last week for the first time since July as concerns over Middle Eastern supply intensified.
Markets were also bracing for further increases following an attack on a major Saudi oil pipeline.
The combination of disrupted shipping through Hormuz, attacks on energy infrastructure and uncertainty surrounding Iran’s future oil exports has created a potentially dangerous situation for global energy markets.
For consumers, sustained high crude prices can eventually translate into higher costs for petrol, diesel, aviation fuel, transportation and goods.
Trump says gasoline prices will fall
Despite the current pressure on energy markets, Trump said gasoline prices would fall sharply once the Iran war ends.
Speaking in Ireland, he said the price of gasoline would “drop like a rock” after the conflict.
But exactly how quickly that could happen would depend on several factors, including the restoration of oil flows, the security of shipping routes, global demand and the extent of any damage to regional energy infrastructure.
If disruptions continue, lower prices could prove more difficult to achieve.
Trump claims Iran wants talks
Trump also repeated his claim that Iran has been seeking negotiations.
He said Tehran was “calling constantly” to discuss peace.
Iran has previously rejected similar claims from Washington.
Trump said he would only accept what he described as the “right deal”, making clear that he was unwilling to accept an agreement he considered inadequate.
The president has also continued to predict that the war could end before the end of 2026, potentially around the time of the U.S. midterm elections in November.
What would a post-war oil mean?
Trump’s comparison with Venezuela raises a major question:
Could oil become part of the price of ending the Iran conflict?
Iran’s oil industry is strategically important not only to Tehran but to the global energy market.
A deal that allows greater access to Iranian crude could potentially increase global supply and put downward pressure on prices.
But any arrangement involving U.S. control, access to or revenues from Iranian oil would likely face major political, legal and geopolitical questions.
It could also become a major source of tension between Washington and Tehran.
Trump’s remarks reference an oil agreement involving the United States and Venezuela announced in August.
The administration has portrayed the arrangement as part of a broader effort to secure access to Venezuela’s vast oil resources.
Trump’s claim that Venezuelan oil revenues have “paid for the war many times” highlights the importance he places on energy resources as part of U.S. foreign policy.
Applying a similar model to Iran, however, would be considerably more complicated.
Iran is not Venezuela.
Tehran has a long history of confrontation with Washington, while the current conflict is unfolding amid heightened tensions across the Middle East.
Discover more from LN247
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
