Trump’s top energy official issues chilling warning to Iran: Oil exports not safe

In a move that signals a return to hardline policy stances, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright on April 11 said the United States has the capability to halt Iran‘s oil exports entirely if required. Speaking during a visit to Abu Dhabi, Wright emphasized that the US can once again enforce a maximum pressure strategy against Tehran, one that was previously deployed during President Donald Trump’s first term in office. The comments were made as high-level nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran are set to resume, with the stakes considerably heightened amid a broader geopolitical standoff.

Wright underscored that the United States possesses the logistical and intelligence capabilities to track Iranian oil tankers and effectively choke off its crude exports, which represent a critical source of revenue for Iran’s economy. “We can follow the ships leaving Iran. We know where they go. We can stop Iran’s export of oil,” he stated, while noting that he would not publicly discuss the technical methods behind such enforcement. This reassertion of the maximum pressure doctrine—previously imposed through a combination of secondary sanctions and maritime monitoring—has now resurfaced as a key leverage point in Washington’s diplomatic posture.

Why is the US reasserting pressure on Iran now?

The timing of this renewed threat is crucial. Iran has agreed to participate in high-level nuclear talks with the United States, scheduled to be held in Oman. These discussions are the first of their kind since President Trump reassumed office, and come amid fears that Iran is nearing the threshold of weapon-grade uranium enrichment. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has been enriching uranium to levels exceeding 60%, just shy of the 90% purity required for nuclear weapons.

The nuclear talks are also occurring in the context of intensified rhetoric from the White House. President Trump has publicly warned Tehran that failure to reach an agreement may lead to military confrontation. In recent remarks to reporters, he stated that military action was “absolutely” an option, further suggesting that Israel would be “the leader of that” operation if such a scenario unfolds. These comments echo the aggressive diplomacy employed during his previous term, when the US withdrew from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and imposed extensive economic sanctions on Iran.

How would stopping Iranian oil exports affect global markets?

Halting Iranian oil exports would have broad implications for the global energy market. Iran, despite sanctions, continues to export significant volumes of oil, primarily to China and several smaller Asian markets through what is commonly referred to as the “shadow fleet”—a network of disguised or reflagged tankers operating under third-party intermediaries. According to analysts, Iran’s oil exports reached nearly 1.5 million barrels per day earlier this year, with some fluctuations depending on sanctions enforcement.

A sudden clampdown on this supply could tighten global crude availability, especially at a time when other producers in the Middle East are under production caps agreed through OPEC+. While US shale output remains relatively strong, disruptions in Iranian supply could nudge prices upward and prompt market recalibrations, particularly if retaliatory actions are taken by Iran in the Strait of Hormuz—a key maritime chokepoint for global oil shipments.

Wright sought to balance this concern by asserting that oil demand and supply dynamics remain favorable in the medium term, partially owing to the Trump administration’s energy policies aimed at encouraging domestic production and strategic reserves. Nonetheless, any substantial enforcement of a full oil blockade on Iran would likely trigger market volatility, particularly given the tight balance currently prevailing in global energy markets.

What is the significance of using oil as leverage in nuclear diplomacy?

Oil has long served as a pressure point in US-Iran diplomacy. During Trump’s first term, the US unilaterally exited the JCPOA and imposed sweeping sanctions that targeted Iran’s oil revenues. These sanctions were designed to push Iran to negotiate a broader agreement covering not only nuclear enrichment but also its ballistic missile programme and regional military activity. The result was a steep decline in Iranian exports, which at one point fell below 300,000 barrels per day in 2020.

Re-imposing or tightening such sanctions now could similarly squeeze Iran’s economy, potentially forcing Tehran to accept a more constrained nuclear deal. However, analysts also caution that such unilateral pressure might backfire without buy-in from other signatories of the original JCPOA, such as the European Union, Russia, and China. Unlike in 2018, Iran today has stronger oil ties with non-Western partners, which could make sanctions enforcement more complicated.

Moreover, Iran’s economy has adapted somewhat to a sanctions environment, developing more opaque oil trading routes and using barter systems with regional allies. Whether a full-scale export shutdown could be achieved under current geopolitical constraints remains an open question. Wright’s assertion that “we can stop Iran’s export of oil” appears more aimed at signaling capability and intent rather than unveiling an immediate policy shift.

What are the diplomatic risks of escalating energy sanctions?

The reintroduction of aggressive sanctions on Iranian oil raises a host of diplomatic risks. Firstly, it could derail the upcoming talks in Oman, which Iran has described as being given “a genuine chance.” Escalating sanctions or threatening military action just ahead of negotiations could undermine trust and limit the scope for meaningful engagement. Iran has already indicated that it prefers indirect talks, likely mediated by Oman or other neutral actors, which points to a fragile diplomatic structure.

Secondly, greater pressure from the United States could heighten regional tensions, particularly with countries that share borders with Iran or rely on its economic networks. Gulf allies of the US, such as the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, may support pressure on Iran’s nuclear ambitions but also fear broader destabilisation that could disrupt trade, tourism, and security cooperation. Wright mentioned that Gulf allies were “extremely concerned” about a nuclear-armed Iran, indicating shared strategic alignment—but not necessarily endorsement of every tactic.

Finally, the enforcement of sanctions via maritime interception—such as stopping Iranian ships at sea—could potentially trigger naval confrontations. These operations are fraught with risk, particularly in the Gulf’s narrow waterways where the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has frequently engaged in provocative actions against foreign vessels. Any misstep in enforcement could escalate into broader conflict, drawing in multiple actors including Israel, which Trump has signaled would have a frontline role in any military action.

Where do oil sanctions fit into broader US-Iran policy under Trump?

The current approach under President Trump marks a continuation—and intensification—of a hardline stance that uses economic tools, particularly energy restrictions, as levers to extract diplomatic concessions. While the Biden administration had attempted to revive the JCPOA through multilateral dialogue and limited sanction relief, the Trump administration appears intent on restoring a coercive model.

Energy sanctions serve both symbolic and practical purposes in this strategy. Symbolically, they demonstrate Washington’s unwillingness to tolerate nuclear brinkmanship from Tehran. Practically, they attempt to undercut Iran’s capacity to finance nuclear development, support proxy militias, and exert regional influence. With the 2024 re-election of Trump, the geopolitical calculus in West Asia has shifted once again, reviving older fault lines and sharpening the debate over how to handle Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

As talks resume in Oman, the specter of an oil blockade looms large. While it remains uncertain whether the US will immediately move to restrict Iran’s oil exports, the statement by Energy Secretary Wright serves as a warning shot—one designed to remind Tehran that Washington retains considerable tools of economic pressure. How Iran responds in the coming days will shape not just the outcome of the nuclear talks, but also the stability of global oil markets and regional peace.