Why Should G7 Bail Out Donald Trump?

Why should the Group of Seven bail out Donald Trump from an energy crisis aggravated by the war with Iran and disruption of energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz?

The question becomes even more relevant after G7 countries agreed to release up to 100 million barrels of diesel, crude oil and other petroleum products from emergency reserves over four months, with a substantial volume of diesel to be released within the first 20 days.

The decision followed intense pressure from Washington, including the threat of a US diesel-export ban that could have further disrupted supplies to Europe.

The irony is difficult to ignore. Trump had repeatedly indicated that a diesel-export ban was under consideration. After European countries agreed to release their strategic stocks, he declared that the United States would not impose such a ban—and claimed that it had never really been on the table.

If that is the case, why were America's allies required to open their emergency reserves?

Strategic petroleum reserves are maintained for genuine emergencies. They should not become an instrument for managing the consequences of another country's policies. Releasing 100 million barrels may provide temporary relief, but it cannot substitute for restoring normal energy flows.

The larger question is therefore unavoidable, why is Washington concentrating on extracting more fuel from its allies instead of addressing the causes of the disruption?

The Strait of Hormuz is vital to the global energy system. Prolonged disruption affects far more than Iran. Higher crude and refined-product prices feed directly into transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, inflation and household costs across the world.

Trump may describe the G7 release as a “major world contribution.” But the world needs more than emergency barrels. It needs secure shipping routes, uninterrupted energy supplies and a diplomatic framework capable of ending the confrontation.

Punishing Iran through sanctions and military pressure while asking the rest of the world to absorb the resulting energy shock is hardly a sustainable strategy.

If Washington wants its allies to share the burden of the crisis, it should also be prepared to share responsibility for ending it. Otherwise, the G7 may simply be helping Trump postpone a problem that requires a political solution.

Who holds the cards?

Having departed Pakistan on Saturday just as the US was preparing to send emissaries to discuss the war, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi eventually popped up for talks with Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg, where he said Tehran is committed to strengthening its partnership with Moscow, reports Bloomberg.

Araghchi’s geopolitical chess move came after a dissonant weekend of potential feints and false starts in the effort to end the US-Israel war with Iran. As news broke that the Iranian official was leaving Islamabad, Trump announced he was canceling the trip by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, in part because the US “has all the cards.”

Iran has told Pakistan, which is operating as an intermediary, that it would cease obstruction of the Strait of Hormuz if the US ended its naval blockade of Iranian shipping. Under its plan, negotiations over Iran’s nuclear research would be dealt with later, Axios reported.

While the White House said it hasn’t changed its position on “red lines” associated with Iran’s atomic program, the administration said it was nevertheless discussing the Iranian proposal.

None of this back and forth sat well with energy markets Monday, the eve of the war’s two-month anniversary. Brent crude prices rose for a sixth straight session to settle above US$108 a barrel. And at least one European leader angered by the high energy prices the continent is paying thanks to the conflict was less than diplomatic in his assessment.

The US “is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Monday, adding he didn’t see “what strategic exit the Americans are now choosing.” Tehran’s negotiators, the German leader said, are proceeding “very skillfully—or indeed very skillfully not negotiating.”