Trump faces a simple but difficult choice: Iran’s enriched uranium still needs to be secured, and airstrikes haven’t accomplished that. The only clear way to control it would likely require U.S. troops on the ground—an option that risks widening the conflict and raising the stakes significantly.
That uncertainty has been pouring over into global energy markets.
Oil prices have pulled back from recent highs but remain elevated as the Middle East conflict shows no signs of abating. Europe remains largely non-committal towards using military means to secure the Strait of Hormuz, while U.S. President Donald Trump is still mulling whether to put U.S. troops on the ground in Iran in a bid to secure its cache of enriched uranium. Brent crude for May delivery was trading at $112.02 per barrel at 8:10 pm ET, down from Thursday’s peak above $118/bbl, while the corresponding WTI crude contract was changing hands at $98.32 per barrel after hitting $101/bbl on Thursday.
On Thursday, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Japan issued a joint statement condemning Iran’s attacks on commercial vessels and said they are “…ready to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz.’’ However, they did not commit to a specific, Pentagon-led security mission. It’s worth noting that Germany, Italy, and Greece have previously ruled out sending warships to join a US-led military mission in the Gulf, citing that the conflict is not their war and they were not consulted. Previously, EU foreign ministers confirmed they will not expand their current "Aspides" naval mission from the Red Sea into the Strait of Hormuz, with reports suggesting there is no appetite to alter the mission's mandate.
Trump has slammed Europe for falling to help a landing help in the Gulf mission, calling them ‘‘cowards’’, “Now that fight is militarily WON, with very little danger for them, they complain about the high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz, a simple military maneuver that is the single reason for the high oil prices. So easy for them to do, with so little risk,” he wrote on his Truth Social platform.
And now the onus rests on Trump to make a final decision on whether to deploy U.S. ground troops to seize Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile in one of the most high-stakes and controversial decisions of the ongoing conflict. The Trump administration's stated goal remains preventing a nuclear-armed Iran, but the president is now caught between maximalist aims and a desire to keep costs low and avoid a long-term regime change war.
Experts estimate that Iran owns 970 pounds of enriched uranium that can potentially be used to build up to 10 nuclear weapons, much of it buried under the mountain facility targeted in U.S. bombings. On Thursday, Trump told reporters he was not putting troops on the ground in Iran, though he added that if he were, he wouldn't telegraph it. Conversely, sources within the administration indicate that the deployment of special forces to secure near-bomb-grade uranium is a live option under review. Expert analysis suggests that extracting or diluting the enriched material would likely require more than 1,000 troops per site.
However, the Trump administration would have its work cut out for it if it decides to send troops into Iran. The Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified on Wednesday that U.S. and Israeli air strikes have already "obliterated" Iran's enrichment program and buried underground facilities under rubble, making any recovery mission a physically complex undertaking.
Further, it’s unclear whether Trump would be able to garner the necessary approval from the U.S. Congress, with many lawmakers arguing that such a significant escalation would necessitate formal congressional authorization, despite the administration’s potential to act under executive authority. Interestingly, the matter is not cleanly split along party lines: lawmakers such as Florida Senator Rick Scott (R) have emphasized that allowing the stockpile to remain in the hands of Iranian hard-liners is untenable, while others like Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal (D) argue that securing the uranium cannot be achieved without a physical presence.
Additionally, the majority of Americans are against such a mission: a recent YouGov poll found Trump has a net approval of -20 for how he’s handling the situation in Iran, with 56% disapproving and only 36% approving. This makes it the least popular major American conflict in nearly a century.
And now there are growing concerns that oil prices could spike to levels never seen before. Energy and commodity analysts at Wood Mackenzie have predicted that oil prices could approach $200 per barrel if the Strait of Hormuz remains blocked for a sustained period. If that sounds like a stretch, consider that Standard Chartered estimates that the Middle East war has cut global oil supply by 7.4-8.2 million barrels per day. The release of 400 million barrels recently pledged by 32 IEA members over a 12-month period would only cover ~1.1 mb/d of that shortfall, potentially leaving global markets in a huge deficit.
By Alex Kimani for Oilprice.com
Related Stories
