Introduction
During the Iran-U.S. war, one of the most complex psychological-financial operations in modern history was set in motion. The U.S. Treasury Department, led by Scott Bessent, combined two theories—”Narrative Economy” and “Reflexivity”—in an attempt to keep oil prices low despite the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. This operation, carried out in full coordination with the media empire and Wall Street financial institutions, came close to success but is now on the verge of complete collapse. This article analyzes the mechanism of this operation and the reasons for its imminent failure.
1. Narrative Economy: The Method of Pricing Through News-Making
Pricing based on creating a narrative aligned with a selected set of news stories, or generating news during hybrid warfare, is similar to the operation carried out against Iran’s rial, and consequently against all goods, dealing heavy blows to economic stability and investment appeal. Although the concept is clear, it was first theorized by one of the world’s most influential economists, Robert Shiller. Alongside this, George Soros’s theory—Bessent’s mentor—comes into play: when narrative-building leads to a change in price, which then leads to an actual change in economic conditions and the fulfillment of that narrative, the phenomenon of “Reflexivity” occurs. The operation against the rial is a case in point: narrative-building to raise the dollar’s price raises the price of goods, which then stabilizes the rial’s decline, leading to class divisions and the transfer of wealth from the poor and salaried workers to the rich and capital owners. When this narrative-building is combined with timed and volume-controlled field operations buying or selling the targeted commodity or financial asset to steer prices in the desired direction and faces no active or stronger counterforce, it produces the desired outcome through an avalanche effect, guided by the liquidity present in society.
2. The Method of Implementation in the Iran War
The U.S. Treasury, in full coordination with the media empire, used timely news-making about Iran’s surrender or an agreement to reopen the strait along with selling oil futures at specific times and in specific volumes, depending on market reaction to cause instant price drops and convince buyers that the strait would reopen soon and prices would drop sharply. This created a psychological price ceiling in the market, such that throughout the entire conflict, buyers were convinced to believe the false promise of reopening by the end of the current week or early the next week. This method was financially effective; by knowing the timing of the announcement of reopening—whether through agreement or Iran’s surrender—they sold oil futures at appropriate moments, causing prices to drop and setting a ceiling. As prices approached this ceiling, or as U.S. financial markets began to fall, the volume of psychological news and sales would increase.
3. Manipulation of Oil Markets to Lower Prices
The effectiveness of this method was contingent on the availability of sufficient reserves, and worked until they approached critical levels. The U.S. side injected massive liquidity into the oil market, buying large volumes of futures contracts at prices lower than the spot rate—essentially betting that oil prices would fall in the future. The goal of this enormous gamble was to control oil prices and, consequently, to contain a chain of far more destructive consequences: inflation that would take on exponential dimensions, interest rates that would skyrocket, and stock and bond markets that would face severe declines. In this equation, the heavy cost of controlling oil prices, compared to the disaster it was preventing, seemed not only logical but necessary. In another example, Goldman Sachs, a pro-Zionist financial institution, sold $24.8 billion in oil futures contracts in June 2026, knowing the timing of the war’s end—essentially betting that oil prices would fall. For these institutions, the cost of tens to hundreds of billions of dollars to control oil prices is negligible compared to the disaster of inflation and market collapses. In contrast, BlackRock, during the initial shock of the war, lost about $1 trillion in value due to Trump’s psychological warfare and the narrative of Iran’s cooperation in reopening the strait, and came close to collapse to the point that a rush of shareholders to withdraw deposits triggered a chain-reaction collapse.
4. Massive Drawdown from Global Oil Reserves
The United States and its allies, having control over the timing of war and peace, instead of allowing supply and demand to determine oil prices, aggressively drew down strategic reserves to artificially keep prices low and shield their economies from inflationary shocks. However, these massive drawdowns have reduced strategic reserves to levels that, if continued, will soon reach legal and technical warning thresholds. The nominal capacity of U.S. reserves is about 700 million barrels, but current inventory has dropped significantly compared to the pre-war period with Iran, nearing the minimum legal requirement (1983 legislation) and the technical minimum needed to maintain the integrity of storage caverns and pipelines. Thus, only a limited portion of current reserves remains available for withdrawal—a volume that, at the current rate of drawdown, will be quickly depleted—effectively placing serious limits on America’s operational capacity to continue controlling prices through this channel. This situation shows that the current strategy is a temporary solution that will soon lose its effectiveness without a change in approach.
5. Endgame: The Imminent Surge in Oil Prices
Once the available reserves are depleted—which, according to the analysis above, will last only a limited time at the current rate—the United States and its allies will face a difficult dilemma: either ration fuel or allow price increases to reduce consumption. Both options carry heavy economic consequences. Under these conditions, Trump’s bluff in controlling the oil market will be exposed. All of his economic achievements during this period—from the inflated value of stocks and assets to employment figures, which have been his strongest arguments in defending his performance and proving the war’s lack of impact on America will collapse all at once. The summer of 2026 and the start of the travel season will accelerate this process dramatically. Seasonal increases in fuel demand will put America in a difficult dilemma between supplying diesel for farmers or jet fuel for air travel—a calculation where any answer will mean widespread dissatisfaction among one of the key sectors of society. Moreover, OECD countries, which account for over 40% of global oil consumption, hold only 60% to 70% of the world’s oil reserves. This imbalance means that other countries will face oil shortages sooner and will be forced to resort to rationing or export bans. This shortage will hit their economies like dominoes, triggering a chain of negative consequences. A sharp rise in oil prices will, in the coming months, fuel weak economic indicators, runaway inflation, and higher interest rates, dealing a multi-trillion-dollar blow to the architects of this war. These costs are not only incomparable to the compensation demands of Iran and its allies (which amount to at most $3 trillion) but will be several times larger, revealing the true cost of continuing this misguided path.
Conclusion
The combined operation of Narrative Economy and reserve drawdowns, while able to keep oil prices low in the short term, is now approaching its physical limits and is on the verge of complete failure. These combined pressures have trapped Western decision-makers in a lose-lose dilemma—recession or runaway inflation. The failure of this bluff will not only mean a sharp surge in oil prices but will also destroy all of their illusory gains in controlling financial markets.
