Vyacheslav Maracha: Russia’s Energy Sovereignty vs. US Dominance

The creation of the Energy Dominance Council in the US, combined with the military operation against Iran, creates a triple challenge for Russia: loss of the European market, intensified competition in the Arctic, and potential loss of influence over global prices if the US succeeds in Iran. However, in the event of a US defeat and Iran maintaining control over the Strait of Hormuz, the US Energy Dominance Council will face strategic collapse. For Russia, such an outcome would mean a shift from defensive tactics to offensive ones: using the energy lever to dictate prices and reformatting global logistics around the Northern Sea Route.

The National Energy Dominance Council is a new body created by President Trump’s executive order to coordinate measures aimed at maximizing energy production in the United States. Its goal is to achieve «energy dominance,» i.e., transforming the US into a global leader in energy production, not merely a country independent of imports. The Council is chaired by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. It is vested with broad powers to streamline drilling permits, reduce bureaucratic barriers, and increase the production of oil, gas, and coal. As a result, the Trump administration has already approved a record number of drilling permits (over 6,000), approved new LNG terminal projects, and lifted bans on offshore drilling.

Undermining Russia’s Role as an Energy Supplier

The new US strategy of «energy dominance» directly undermines Russia’s role as a key energy supplier by displacing it from European and Asian markets. This manifests in three main ways.

First, accelerating Europe’s abandonment of Russian gas. The US is cementing its role as the EU’s primary energy supplier. The share of Russian pipeline gas in EU imports fell from 40% in 2021 to about 6% in 2025. New EU rules ban the import of Russian LNG and pipeline gas from March 2026, a niche that the US is actively filling. In 2025, the US supplied nearly 58% of EU LNG imports.

Second, displacing Russian oil in Asia. The US is actively encouraging key Asian buyers (India, China) to switch to alternative sources to displace Russian oil. This forces Russia to sell its Urals oil at growing discounts.

Third, pressure on prices. By increasing global supply and seeking to remove the «geopolitical premium» from prices (including through engagement with Venezuela), the US helps contain or even lower oil prices. This is critical for Russia, whose budget depends on oil and gas revenues for more than 40%.

The Arctic is becoming a new arena of competition for energy market dominance, where the US strategy directly challenges Russia’s long-standing ambitions. This is expressed primarily in competition over routes and resources. Russia has invested heavily in developing the Northern Sea Route (NSR) and possesses the world’s largest icebreaker fleet (about 50 vessels, including nuclear-powered icebreakers). However, as part of its new strategy, the US has begun rapidly building up its Arctic capabilities. President Trump ordered the construction of 11 new icebreakers, which should reduce the gap with Russia.

Furthermore, the creation of the Energy Dominance Council intensifies the shift from cooperation to confrontation in the Arctic that began after the start of the Special Military Operation (SVO). NATO’s expansion with Finland and Sweden, combined with increased US military presence in Greenland, is forcing Russia to strengthen its own military positions in the Arctic. This is turning the region from a zone of potential economic partnership into a zone of geopolitical rivalry.

A new geopolitical factor complicating this situation is the war between the US-Israeli coalition and Iran. This not only adjusts but also, to some extent, reveals the true goals of the new US energy strategy: to open windows of opportunity for the US while creating new risks for Russia and other competitors.

Obstacles to Achieving US Goals

Currently, four main aspects can be identified.

Price Hikes and «Temporary Difficulties»

The start of the US-Israeli military operation against Iran led to serious supply disruptions. Iran announced full control over the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil and LNG supply passes, leading to an almost complete halt in tanker traffic. This triggered a spike in oil prices above $100 per barrel. However, US officials, particularly Energy Dominance Council head Doug Burgum, call this spike a «temporary surge.» Their strategy is long-term: short-term losses from high prices are supposed to be offset by subsequent market redivision.

The US Plan: «Take All the Oil from the Terrorists»

The most important aspect of the conflict was revealed by Jarrod Eigen, Executive Director of the Energy Dominance Council. On Fox News, he stated that the US is playing a «long game» aimed at «wrenching those vast oil reserves in Iran out of the hands of terrorists.» According to Eigen, the success of this operation would allow the US in the future to «not worry about the Strait of Hormuz problems,» as key oil assets would come under Washington’s control. This statement directly links the military operation to the Council’s key goal of achieving energy dominance through the direct capture of enemy resources.

Containment and Refraining from Strikes on Infrastructure

Despite the rhetoric, US plans have faced real constraints. According to Bloomberg, the Pentagon canceled planned strikes on key Iranian energy infrastructure facilities (refineries, fields, ports) after decisive warnings from regional allies – Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait. Arab partners warned that the destruction of Iranian energy would lead to a humanitarian catastrophe, state collapse, and 30 years of instability following the Iraqi scenario, which would ultimately devastate the region and trigger price spikes up to $150 per barrel. As a result, the US limited itself to strikes on Iranian military targets, preserving the energy infrastructure.

Tactical Maneuver: Sanctions Relief and Iran’s Refusal

To immediately lower prices, it was decided to release additional volumes onto the market. The US Treasury issued 30-day licenses for the sale of Iranian and even Russian oil already sitting in tankers at sea. It was expected to add about 140 million barrels to the market. However, Iran refused to play by US rules. Tehran unexpectedly halted exports, stating it had «no surplus oil for international markets.» This move allowed Iran to maintain its leverage over global prices and not dilute them with supply at the very moment the US needed it most.

What are the main effects of this situation for Russia?

First, a temporary easing of sanctions pressure. Amid the crisis, the US temporarily lifted sanctions on the sale of not only Iranian but also Russian oil to saturate the market. This gave Russia a short-term respite and an opportunity to legally sell some of its accumulated volumes.

Second, intensified competition for market share. The long-term US goal is to seize Iranian assets and turn them into a source of oil controlled by Washington. If the US gains control over Iranian oil, it would be a powerful blow to Russia’s position, as a huge volume of hydrocarbons would enter the world market, working against Moscow’s interests.

Third, the risk of macroeconomic instability. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink warned that if Iran remains a threat to the straits after the war, oil prices could settle above $100 with a risk of rising to $150, triggering a global recession. For Russia, this is a double-edged sword: high prices provide budget revenues, but a global recession reduces long-term demand for energy.

The US Transition from «Energy Independence» to Active Redivision of the Global Energy Market

Thus, the creation of the Energy Dominance Council, combined with the military operation against Iran, demonstrates the US transition from a policy of «energy independence» to a policy of actively redividing the global energy market, including attempts to directly seize enemy resources. For Russia, this creates a triple challenge: loss of the European market, intensified competition in the Arctic, and potential loss of influence over global prices if the US succeeds in Iran.

However, if we consider a scenario in which the US is defeated in Iran and control over the Strait of Hormuz remains with Tehran, the strategic assessments change dramatically. In this case, Russia moves from the category of «tactical beneficiary» to one of the main geopolitical winners, capable of imposing its will on global energy markets.

Reassessment of Strategic Assessments Considering the New Scenario

A New World Order in Energy: The Era of «Coerced Passage»

If Iran maintains control over the Strait of Hormuz, the world will enter a phase that could be called «energy feudalization.» The Strait of Hormuz will cease to be an international waterway and turn into a controlled geopolitical filter.

Legalization of tolls: Iran is already developing a bill to charge ships for passage, formalizing its sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.

Discriminatory access: Iran openly states that it will only allow «friendly» countries (Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iraq) to pass, blocking ships linked to the US and Israel.

Result for Russia: The US and its allies lose access to cheap Gulf oil. Europe finds itself in an energy blockade. In this situation, Russia gains a monopoly on energy supplies for countries not in the «friendly» pool, as alternative supply routes from the Gulf region are effectively closed to them.

Economic Effect for Russia: From Survival to Superprofits

A US defeat and the maintenance of control over the Strait will lead to a structural supply deficit in the market, dramatically improving Moscow’s position.

Price shock and sanctions relief: According to forecasts from the Russian Foreign Ministry, if the Strait of Hormuz is blocked for a long period, oil prices could reach $150–200 per barrel. With current prices above $100, Russia is already receiving an additional $3–4 billion in revenue monthly. In a deficit situation, the US will be forced not only to extend but also to expand temporary licenses to purchase Russian oil. Experts suggest that sanctions pressure could be eased indefinitely to compensate for the loss of Iranian oil.

Reduction of the discount on Russian oil: In the first weeks of the war, the discount on Russian Urals oil for India and China shrank from $25 to $4–5 per barrel. If the Strait of Hormuz is completely closed to Western countries, the discount will disappear entirely. Russia will start selling energy at market prices or even at a premium for supply reliability bypassing the Strait.

Rebooting the Arctic Strategy

A US defeat in Iran and the loss of influence over the Strait of Hormuz would transform the Russian Arctic from a zone of competition into a zone of strategic superiority, as the NSR would become a global logistical alternative. If the Strait of Hormuz is closed or controlled by Iran (an ally of Russia), and the Suez Canal remains a zone of instability (due to Iranian threats to close the Bab-el-Mandeb), the NSR becomes the only safe route for transporting energy between Asia and Europe/America.

This situation would also lead to the devaluation of US icebreakers. The US plans to build 11 new icebreakers lose meaning if the economic model for the US to utilize the Arctic collapses due to the inability to export Middle Eastern oil. Russia, possessing the world’s largest icebreaker fleet, becomes the «Arctic gendarme,» dictating the conditions of passage.

Political and Military Consequences: Erosion of American Hegemony

A US defeat would deal an irreparable blow to its alliance system and strengthen Moscow’s position in the Global South. This would manifest in two factors: the collapse of trust in US guarantees and the reduction of pressure on the Ukrainian theater of military operations:

Arab monarchies (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait), which warned the US against striking Iranian energy infrastructure, would see that Washington could not protect either their interests or freedom of navigation. This would trigger a massive turn by these countries towards the «Russia – China – Iran» axis.

US military resources (ammunition, air defense systems) would be depleted or tied down in the Middle East. Russia would gain the opportunity to use this moment to achieve its goals in the Ukrainian conflict with minimal external risks.

Risks for Russia (The Other Side of Victory)

However, even in this winning scenario, there are critical risks that could negate short-term gains.

Global recession: Oil prices above $150–200 per barrel would inevitably lead to a global recession. As experts note, global GDP losses could range from 0.5 to 2%. This would reduce the volume of demand for energy in the long term.

Ecological disaster in the Arctic: A direct consequence of the war in Iran is large-scale fires at oil storage facilities. Specialists warn that soot from these fires settles in the Russian Arctic, accelerating glacier melting and changing the region’s climate, which creates risks for the NSR infrastructure.

Nuclear crisis: If the US is defeated, Iran will likely accelerate the creation of nuclear weapons. This could lead to an arms race in the region, and Russia would face the fact of a nuclear power in a state of permanent war with the West, requiring complex balancing.

Conclusions

The creation of the Energy Dominance Council, combined with the military operation against Iran, demonstrates the US transition from a policy of «energy independence» to a policy of actively redividing the global energy market, including attempts to directly seize enemy resources. For Russia, this creates a triple challenge: loss of the European market, intensified competition in the Arctic, and potential loss of influence over global prices if the US succeeds in Iran.

However, in the event of a US defeat and Iran maintaining control over the Strait of Hormuz, the US Energy Dominance Council will face strategic collapse. America will not be able to dominate the market if key global arteries are blocked or controlled by an adversary.

For Russia, such an outcome means a shift from defensive tactics (preserving revenues under sanctions) to offensive ones: using the energy lever to dictate prices and reformatting global logistics around its Northern Sea Route. The Arctic will transform from a «clash of interests» into a primary asset, and European energy security will ultimately come under Moscow’s control.

The Project Office for Arctic Development and the editorial board of GoArctic.ru do not always share the opinions expressed by experts.

For media representatives: the editorial board of GoArctic.ru welcomes republication of comments provided that an active link to the original source and the columnist’s status as an expert of the Project Office for Arctic Development are indicated.