The fourth day of coordinated United States and Israeli military strikes on Iran has intensified diplomatic rhetoric and unsettled global energy markets, as officials on both sides signal resolve while analysts weigh the economic consequences.
According to Arise News, senior Iranian official Ali Larijani, identified as Secretary of the Supreme Council for Defence, declared that Tehran would not enter negotiations with Washington. His remarks followed statements by US President Donald Trump that the United States would pursue its objectives “whatever it takes”, while US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted the campaign would not mirror the protracted Iraq war, stating it would not be “endless”.
Against this backdrop of assertive messaging, Arise News interviewed Kristoff Rühl, global adviser at Crystal Energy and Senior Research Scholar at the Centre on Global Energy Policy, Columbia University, to assess the strategic and economic dimensions of the unfolding conflict.
Rühl argued that conflicting signals from Tehran reflect pressure on Iran’s leadership rather than institutional collapse. He said: “You know the old saying the first truth in a war is the first victim in a war is always the truth you know which is undoubtedly true for that war as well here and so now we just have to pick through the rubble who who is has more of a truth victim here.”
He suggested that decentralised military operations may now be underway. “Before the old government was killed, they had devised a strategy which was relying much on decentralization especially for military activities knowing that they could be decapitulated literally,” he stated, adding that various Iranian officials were offering divergent public positions under intense strain.
On Washington’s objectives, Rühl dismissed suggestions of contradiction among US officials. He said the stated goals appear consistent: to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability, dismantle its ballistic missile programme, and weaken its naval assets. “I don't see a contradiction there, I'm afraid,” he said, explaining that timelines may remain fluid depending on operational developments.
He pointed to indications that further strikes could target enrichment infrastructure. “What is still missing and that's probably what they are referring to is another big hit against these nuclear enrichment facilities,” Rühl observed, referencing public discussion of military positioning and logistical preparations.
As hostilities continue, regional energy infrastructure has reportedly come under strain, with facilities in parts of the Gulf affected. The potential disruption has renewed concerns about oil and gas flows through critical maritime routes.
Rühl distinguished between temporary price volatility and sustained supply disruption. “We have to make two distinctions. One is between oil and gas and the other is whether we're talking about short-term impacts with price spikes or whether we talk for a longer term disruption of supplies,” he explained.
He identified the Strait of Hormuz as the principal vulnerability but cautioned against overstating its immediate impact. “Even the straits of HUS, despite what is in the press, it's not like 1/5 of global oil goes through that and and and and cannot go out otherwise,” he said, noting that alternative pipeline routes and regional storage capacity provide a buffer.
According to Rühl, Gulf producers maintain substantial reserves. “The storage facilities in the GCC and the Gulf countries, the producing countries are relatively large, round about 350 million barrels,” he said, estimating that production could continue for weeks even if shipping lanes were disrupted.
On the demand side, he highlighted strategic reserves in major consuming economies. “China in particular for a long time has has increased its strategic reserves and filled them while oil prices were low,” he said, adding that floating storage linked to sanctioned Russian crude also offers flexibility.
Natural gas markets, however, present a different risk profile. With Qatar supplying roughly a fifth of global liquefied natural gas, prolonged curtailment could weigh more heavily on Asian importers. “Countries which would be really affected by a shortage of natural gas would be in Asia,” he stated, singling out Bangladesh and Pakistan as particularly exposed.
Rühl contrasted the present situation with the 2022 energy shock following Europe’s loss of Russian pipeline gas. “The increase which we had in natural gas price spot prices currently… pales against the increase which we had in 2022,” he said, arguing that improved infrastructure and diversified supply have strengthened resilience.
Financial markets have already begun adjusting to sector-specific risks. Defence stocks and some energy companies have recorded gains, while indices in gas-dependent economies have faced pressure. “If a commodity gets scarce… you would expect those in the supply chain who have still access to us and who sell it to be able to raise their margins,” Rühl explained.
Despite heightened tensions, he characterised current price movements as measured. “By and large I would classify the effects which we have seen as in terms of prices for energy as relatively moderate,” he said.
Looking ahead, Rühl maintained that sustained disruption of physical infrastructure or shipping routes would be the decisive factor for markets. “Whether prices go significantly higher or not all depends on whether there's fear and whether there's substantiated fear for longer physical outages,” he said.