Trump's 'Nuclear or Oil' Ultim
The US President's public declaration prioritizing the prevention of Iranian nuclear weapons over oil profits signals a tectonic shift in both energy markets and Middle East security. This lays the groundwork for strengthened sanctions against Iran and the emergence of military options, impacting oil prices, alliance relationships, and the nuclear non-proliferation regime.
── Understand in 3 points ─────────
- • On March 12, 2026, President Trump posted on social media (Truth Social) that "preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is more important than oil prices."
- • Trump asserted that "America is the world's largest oil producer and stands to gain significant profits from rising oil prices."
- • He called Iran an "evil empire" and declared his intention to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons to destroy the Middle East and the world.
── NOW PATTERN ─────────
The "power overstretch" of the United States simultaneously pursuing both energy and security hegemony is accelerating a "spiral of conflict" with Iran, while "narrative hegemony" framing Iran as an "evil empire" is narrowing the policy space.
── Probabilities and Responses ──────
• Base case 50% — Gradual increase in sanctions designations, secondary sanctions against China activated, gradual rise in oil prices, Iran's enrichment level stable in the 60% range, sporadic proxy wars continue
• Bull case 20% — Signs of covert diplomatic channel activity, mediation efforts by Oman or Switzerland, increase in moderate statements from the Iranian side, Trump's mention of a "deal"
• Bear case 30% — IAEA detection of Iran's 90% enrichment, large-scale Israeli Air Force exercises, additional US aircraft carrier deployment, suspicious military activity around the Strait of Hormuz
📡 Signal — What Happened
Why it matters: The US President's public declaration prioritizing the prevention of Iranian nuclear weapons over oil profits signals a tectonic shift in both energy markets and Middle East security. This lays the groundwork for strengthened sanctions against Iran and the emergence of military options, impacting oil prices, alliance relationships, and the nuclear non-proliferation regime.
- Statement — On March 12, 2026, President Trump posted on social media (Truth Social) that "preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is more important than oil prices."
- Energy — Trump asserted that "America is the world's largest oil producer and stands to gain significant profits from rising oil prices."
- Security — He called Iran an "evil empire" and declared his intention to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons to destroy the Middle East and the world.
- Policy — This effectively reconfirms the policy of completely abandoning the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), which had been largely shelved during the Biden administration.
- Sanctions — Since late 2025, the US has gradually intensified secondary sanctions targeting Iranian oil exports.
- Military — US Central Command (CENTCOM) has maintained military pressure by continuing to deploy aircraft carrier strike groups to the Middle East region since early 2026.
- Nuclear Development — The latest report from the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) states that Iran's uranium enrichment level has reached 60%, making it technically possible to reach weapons-grade 90% in a short period.
- Diplomacy — Iranian President Pezeshkian has indicated a willingness to return to negotiations in exchange for sanctions relief since taking office, but dialogue has stalled due to the US's hardline stance.
- Market — WTI crude oil futures were trading in the range of approximately $72-78 per barrel as of March 2026, with geopolitical risk premium being a factor.
- Alliances — Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has repeatedly hinted at preemptive strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, and Trump's statement indirectly supports Israel's position.
- China — China is the largest purchaser of Iranian crude oil, and strengthened US sanctions are structured to impact US-China relations as well.
- Domestic Politics — Ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, Trump is using his hardline foreign policy stance as an appeal to his base.
The background to President Trump's public declaration prioritizing the prevention of Iranian nuclear weapons over oil prices lies in the structural conflict of US-Iran relations spanning half a century and the geopolitical realignment surrounding energy hegemony. To understand the meaning of this statement, it is necessary to decipher the layered historical context.
Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the American Embassy hostage crisis, the relationship between the US and Iran has been fundamentally adversarial. During the Cold War, after the war with Iraq (1980-88), Iran strengthened its ambitions as a regional power, and nuclear development became a core national project. In the 2000s, when Iran's secret nuclear facilities were exposed, the international community adopted a dual approach of sanctions and negotiations. The 2015 JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) was considered a diplomatic achievement of the Obama administration, but Iran's ballistic missile development and regional proxy wars (support for Hezbollah, Houthis, and Iraqi Shiite militias) were not covered by the agreement, and its structural flaws were pointed out from the outset.
During his first term (2017-2021), Trump withdrew from the JCPOA and pursued a "maximum pressure" policy. While this severely damaged the Iranian economy, it paradoxically led Iran to accelerate its nuclear development. Enrichment levels were raised from the agreed limit of 3.67% to 20%, and then to 60%, making the technical distance to weapons-grade 90% extremely short. The Biden administration sought to rejoin the JCPOA, but negotiations stalled, creating a de facto policy vacuum.
When Trump returned to the presidency in 2025, a hardline policy towards Iran, which could be called "maximum pressure 2.0," was reactivated. However, the current situation differs significantly from his first term. Firstly, the US has become the world's largest oil producer thanks to the shale revolution, fundamentally changing the structure of energy security. The US, once dependent on Middle Eastern oil, is now also a beneficiary of rising oil prices. Trump's ability to state on social media that "the US profits if oil prices rise" is due to this structural transformation.
Secondly, the geopolitical map of the Middle East dramatically changed in the 2020s. The Abraham Accords normalizing relations between Israel and Arab nations, the Saudi Arabia-Iran rapprochement mediated by China (2023), and the 2023-2024 Gaza conflict and its aftermath have fluidified regional alliances. Israel views Iran's nuclear armament as an "existential threat" and openly discusses the option of a preemptive strike. For the Trump administration, strengthening ties with Israel is domestically indispensable, and it cannot abandon the flag of preventing Iranian nuclear weapons.
Thirdly, the impact of the Russia-Ukraine war on energy markets and the international order also casts a shadow over the Iran issue. Russia's procurement of drone and ballistic missile technology from Iran and the deepening military cooperation between the two countries provide grounds for the US to position Iran not merely as a regional threat but as a global security challenge.
Furthermore, the fact that China is the largest purchaser of Iranian crude oil means that sanctions against Iran represent another front in the US-China rivalry. If the US attempts to block Iranian oil exports, friction with China is inevitable, revealing a complex structure where energy, security, and economy are intertwined in a three-way struggle.
Trump's statement "nuclear prevention over oil" is not mere rhetoric. Now that the US has achieved energy self-sufficiency, the logic of its engagement in the Middle East has shifted from securing oil to maintaining security and hegemony. This structural change is the historical context underlying the current statement.
The delta: Trump's explicit statement prioritizing "preventing Iranian nuclear weapons over oil profits" officially shifts US Iran policy from economic calculation to security logic. This is a historic turning point where the US, having achieved energy self-sufficiency, redefines its justification for Middle East engagement, simultaneously signaling intensified sanctions, the emergence of military options, and an expanded geopolitical premium in the oil market.
🔍 Reading Between the Lines — What the News Isn't Saying
Behind Trump's "nuclear prevention over oil" statement lies a domestic groundwork for considering military options against Iran. By preemptively arguing that rising oil prices are positive for the US economy, he is preparing a political absolution for a potential surge in oil prices after military action. Furthermore, the timing of this statement suggests that the administration is aware of the possibility of further enrichment increases in the next IAEA report. It is also a form of public opinion shaping before playing the secondary sanctions card against China, proactively building the logic that "we will not shy away from friction with China if it means stopping Iran's nuclear program."
NOW PATTERN
Power Overstretch × Spiral of Conflict × Narrative Hegemony
The "power overstretch" of the United States simultaneously pursuing both energy and security hegemony is accelerating a "spiral of conflict" with Iran, while "narrative hegemony" framing Iran as an "evil empire" is narrowing the policy space.
Intersection of Dynamics
These three dynamics mutually reinforce each other, forming a dangerous positive feedback loop. "Narrative hegemony" defining Iran as an "evil empire" eliminates diplomatic solutions, causing the "spiral of conflict" to only escalate. Since negotiation or compromise would signify "defeat" in the narrative, US policymakers are constantly forced to choose harder options.
At the same time, the "power overstretch" dynamic raises questions about the sustainability of the resources supporting this hardline approach. Maximizing the effect of sanctions against Iran requires secondary sanctions against China, which would further worsen US-China relations and increase the cost of conflict on another front. Maintaining a military presence in the Middle East creates a trade-off with force allocation to the Indo-Pacific. However, because "narrative hegemony" has defined "stopping Iran's nuclear program as the top priority," publicly discussing this trade-off becomes politically difficult.
Furthermore, if the "spiral of conflict" further accelerates Iran's nuclear development, the US may be forced to take actions beyond what was declared in its "narrative hegemony"—namely, military action—potentially pushing "power overstretch" to a critical point. The variable of unilateral Israeli action also risks accelerating the spiral in a way the US cannot control. At the intersection of these three dynamics lies a self-fulfilling crisis structure where rhetoric dictates reality, and reality demands further rhetoric.
📚 History of Patterns
1981-1987: President Reagan's "Evil Empire" Speech and the Late Cold War Arms Buildup
Narrative Hegemony + Power Overstretch
Structural Similarities to the Present: The "evil empire" rhetoric united domestic public opinion and justified military buildup, but also led to excessive military investment like SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative). While the Soviet Union eventually collapsed, the US national debt swelled, and economic vulnerabilities accumulated. The success of rhetoric does not guarantee policy success.
2002-2003: President Bush's "Axis of Evil" Speech to the Iraq War
Narrative Hegemony + Spiral of Conflict + Power Overstretch
Structural Similarities to the Present: The narrative emphasizing the threat of WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) justified the invasion of Iraq, but no WMDs were found, and the post-war occupation became a quagmire. Policies driven by narrative lead to severe crises of trust when the disconnect with reality becomes apparent. Furthermore, the resource consumption of the Iraq War delayed stabilization in Afghanistan, becoming a typical overstretch pattern.
2011-2015: Obama Administration's Sanctions Against Iran to the JCPOA Agreement
Temporary Control of the Spiral of Conflict
Structural Similarities to the Present: Strict multilateral sanctions brought Iran back to the negotiating table, leading to the JCPOA agreement. However, the agreement was structurally fragile because it shelved regional proxy wars and ballistic missile issues, and was easily abrogated with a change in administration. Stopping the spiral requires a comprehensive and sustainable framework.
2017-2021: Trump's First Term Withdrawal from JCPOA and "Maximum Pressure" Policy
Spiral of Conflict + Power Overstretch
Structural Similarities to the Present: The maximum pressure policy damaged the Iranian economy, but paradoxically accelerated nuclear development. The 2019 tanker attacks in the Strait of Hormuz and drone attacks on Saudi oil facilities demonstrated the risk of pressure leading to military escalation. A policy solely focused on pressure cornered the opponent, inducing unpredictable reactions.
2024: Direct Military Conflict Between Israel and Iran
Militarization of the Spiral of Conflict
Structural Similarities to the Present: The April 2024 missile and drone attacks by Iran on Israeli territory and the retaliation proved that over 40 years of "shadow war" could escalate into direct military conflict. The threshold for escalation has irreversibly lowered, and the probability of a war of words turning into an actual war is higher than before.
Patterns Revealed by History
Historically, when a US president adopts rhetoric morally condemning an adversary, policy has consistently moved in the direction of escalation. Reagan's "evil empire" led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, but at the cost of an arms race and fiscal deficits. Bush's "axis of evil" led to the Iraq War, a two-decade quagmire. Trump's first term "maximum pressure" paradoxically accelerated Iran's nuclear development.
There are three common patterns. First, a good-versus-evil framing deprives diplomatic flexibility and converges policy options towards military solutions. Second, pressure policies that corner the opponent, while appearing to yield short-term results, empower hardliners on the opposing side and create more dangerous situations in the long run. Third, when the US pursues hegemony in both energy and security, resource dispersion leads to vulnerabilities on one front or another.
Trump's current statement suggests that all these historical patterns are beginning to operate simultaneously. The only uncertainty is at what stage this spiral—diplomatic resolution, limited military action, or full-scale regional conflict—will reach equilibrium.
🔮 Next Scenarios
The Trump administration gradually strengthens sanctions against Iran, particularly expanding secondary sanctions targeting Iranian oil exports to Chinese companies. Direct military conflict is avoided, but tensions remain high. Oil prices rise to the $80-90 range due to geopolitical risk premiums. Iran outwardly maintains a willingness to negotiate while continuing its "threshold state" strategy, advancing nuclear development technically to just before the 90% enrichment threshold. IAEA inspectors' access is partially restricted but does not lead to complete exclusion. Israel maintains aggressive rhetoric but does not undertake large-scale military action without US approval. China implements countermeasures against secondary sanctions but avoids full-scale confrontation, maintaining indirect oil procurement routes via third countries. In the Middle East, sporadic attacks by Iranian proxy forces such as the Houthis and Hezbollah continue, but do not escalate into a full-scale regional war. This state of "managed tension" persists until the 2026 US midterm elections, with Trump presenting the maintenance of a hardline stance itself as a political achievement.
Implications for Investment/Action: Gradual increase in sanctions designations, secondary sanctions against China activated, gradual rise in oil prices, Iran's enrichment level stable in the 60% range, sporadic proxy wars continue
Trump's hardline rhetoric paradoxically acts as a catalyst for a diplomatic breakthrough. Iran's domestic economic crisis provides political space for President Pezeshkian, and under the approval of the Revolutionary Guard and the Supreme Leader, negotiations for a limited nuclear agreement begin behind the scenes. Trump is prepared to accept a diplomatic achievement in a way that aligns with his self-image as the "strongest negotiator." Similar to his summit with Kim Jong Un in his first term, the possibility of orchestrating a dramatic diplomatic shift cannot be ruled out. Especially, achieving a "historic deal" before the midterm elections would be extremely effective as an appeal to his base. The core of the agreement would involve Iran reducing its enrichment level to below 20% and accepting enhanced IAEA inspections, in exchange for the US gradually easing some sanctions. Ballistic missiles and regional proxy wars would be shelved as separate negotiation items. In this scenario, oil prices would fall to the $65-70 range, and the geopolitical risk premium in the Middle East would significantly shrink. However, this agreement would also carry structural vulnerabilities similar to the JCPOA, with the risk of being abrogated again with the next change in administration.
Implications for Investment/Action: Signs of covert diplomatic channel activity, mediation efforts by Oman or Switzerland, increase in moderate statements from the Iranian side, Trump's mention of a "deal"
A scenario where the spiral of conflict escalates uncontrollably. If Iran proceeds with 90% enrichment, or if the IAEA reports a situation close to it, the possibility of Israel executing a preemptive strike sharply increases. The Trump administration chooses not to restrain Israel's actions beforehand, instead supporting them post-facto. If Israel carries out airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities (Natanz, Fordow), Iran retaliates with ballistic missile attacks on Israel, a blockade or disruption of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, and multi-front attacks via Hezbollah and the Houthis. US forces become embroiled in defending Middle East bases and supporting Israel, leading to direct military engagement, albeit limited. Oil prices temporarily surge to $120-150, putting stagflationary pressure on the global economy. Financial markets decline significantly, and a flight to safe assets accelerates. However, full-scale war is devastating for both sides, so a ceasefire is likely within weeks to months. The problem is the risk that the post-ceasefire regional order becomes even more unstable, triggering a domino effect of nuclear proliferation (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt considering nuclear armament). The probability of this scenario largely depends on Israeli domestic politics and the content of the IAEA report.
Implications for Investment/Action: IAEA detection of Iran's 90% enrichment, large-scale Israeli Air Force exercises, additional US aircraft carrier deployment, suspicious military activity around the Strait of Hormuz
Key Triggers to Watch
- Release of the next quarterly IAEA report on Iran's nuclear activities: June 2026 (next Board of Governors meeting)
- Activation of US secondary sanctions against China (targeting Chinese companies involved in Iranian oil purchases): April-June 2026
- Large-scale Israeli military exercises (simulating attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities): Spring-Summer 2026
- Materialization of Trump's Iran policy ahead of the US midterm elections (November 3, 2026): September-October 2026
- Iran's domestic political developments (shifts in the power balance between conservatives and moderates): Throughout 2026
🔄 Tracking Loop
Next Trigger: IAEA Board of Governors Meeting, June 2026 — The latest report on Iran's uranium enrichment level will determine the next actions of the US and Israel. If enrichment significantly exceeds 60%, discussions on military options will rapidly accelerate.
Continuation of this Pattern: Tracking Theme: The unfolding of the US "Maximum Pressure 2.0" policy against Iran — The next milestones are the activation of secondary sanctions and the IAEA quarterly report in April-June 2026.
>How do you read this? Participate in the prediction →
