It has long been assumed that decisions of war and peace in the United States are crafted behind closed doors in the White House. But reality today, in 2026, tells us something entirely different: the gas stations we pass every day are the “hidden partner” in shaping decisions of war and peace.
As the U.S.–Israeli confrontation with Tehran intensifies, the conflict has quickly moved from the waters of the Gulf to the pockets of consumers in America, where gasoline prices have jumped by nearly half a dollar per gallon in just one week. The question now is: to what extent can public frustration reshape Washington’s strategy toward Iran?
History teaches us that the popularity of any American president declines with every increase in fuel prices. Today, we see the Trump administration feeling that pressure as well.
A rise in global oil prices automatically translates into higher living costs, which in turn quickly becomes public discontent expressed at the ballot box in the United States.
The Trump administration understands this risk very well. Ellen Wald, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center, notes that if prices remain elevated for another six months, the Republican Party’s chances in the midterm elections will undoubtedly be threatened. As a result, “consumer sentiment” has shifted from a purely economic concern into a political force that could compel the administration to reconsider its military calculations.
Faced with this dilemma, Washington has not stood idle. The U.S. Secretary of Energy revealed an emergency plan to release 172 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a move aimed in part at ensuring the continuation of supplies in the short term, particularly in Asian markets.
MBN Iran Briefing Podcast
Expert conversations unpacking the latest developments in Iran and how they are reshaping security, energy markets, and geopolitics across the Middle East.
This step reflects Trump’s genuine concern about energy costs. Although the United States currently holds about 415 million barrels in its reserves, drawing them down at this rate places the administration in a race against time.
Wald believes that releasing these volumes may temporarily calm markets, but it remains a limited option in the face of a crisis that could be prolonged, especially as disruptions to navigation in the Gulf create enormous international pressure that reserves alone cannot offset.
The real problem today does not lie in the absence of Iranian oil, which has already been largely cut off by sanctions, but rather in the disruption of the entire global energy artery. The impact extends to the European Union, Asia, and India, placing Washington under international pressure to end the war or find a solution to the energy crisis.
Washington now finds itself facing three possible paths for dealing with the situation:
The first path is to push for a rapid end to the war through a political agreement or a decisive military outcome in order to reduce the economic cost. The second path is to avoid completely destroying Iran’s oil infrastructure in order to prevent an uncontrollable “oil shock.” The third path is to focus on securing navigation through the Strait of Hormuz rather than expanding the scope of the war—an approach that aligns with Trump’s previous tendencies.
In conclusion, despite the weight of the oil factor, Washington’s commitments to its allies and its desire to weaken the regime in Iran may prevent a swift retreat. Yet one constant truth remains: the average American citizen may care less about the complexities of the nuclear file than about the number displayed on the gasoline pump. Oil prices may not end the war, but they will certainly determine its duration—and how far the U.S. administration can pursue its external ambitions before the “price of gasoline” breaks the threshold of domestic endurance.
The article is a translation of the original Arabic.
