A subversive viewpoint: Creating an energy crisis—Trump has been plotting this for a long time!

```

Trump announces a blockade against Iran, pushing the Strait of Hormuz into a new round of turbulence. A question that is increasingly attracting attention is spreading throughout the market: Is this a strategic accident, or a carefully planned move?

According to CCTV International News, on the evening of April 12 local time, after arriving at Andrews Air Force Base, Trump announced to the media that the U.S. military would impose a blockade on Iran at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time on April 13. He claimed that multiple countries are cooperating in the action to prevent Iran from selling oil. Trump asserted that a large number of oil tankers are heading toward the U.S., which will load oil and transport it globally, "These ships don't even need to pass through the Strait of Hormuz." International oil prices surged more than 7% immediately, with WTI crude breaking above $103 per barrel.

This statement highly resonates with U.S. export data. According to oil and gas research institute Kpler, U.S. crude exports in April are expected to surge by nearly a third from March's 3.9 million barrels per day, rising to 5.2 million barrels per day. Currently, 68 empty oil tankers are heading to U.S. ports, far exceeding pre-war levels.

Meanwhile, Professor Helen Thompson of Political Economy at Cambridge University offered a more disruptive assessment in a recent program: This energy crisis—including the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz—may fundamentally not be an accident of war, but rather a deliberate act.

This may be a long-planned energy strategy

In an interview with Bloomberg, Helen Thompson made it clear that the war with Iran may be "part of the Trump administration's attempt to geopolitically reset the global energy landscape."

She characterized this logic as a core "thread" running through the Trump administration's foreign policy in the second term—from intervening in the oil-rich Venezuela to coveting resource-abundant Greenland, all can be included in this framework.

Thompson's core argument is: Pushing up global oil prices and keeping them elevated may itself be one of the Trump administration's war objectives.

As a net energy exporter, the U.S. can benefit; countries highly dependent on energy imports will feel the pressure. "The Trump administration views the world through the lens of resource competition," she says. She also adds that the current competition in the artificial intelligence field between the U.S. and its rivals consumes large amounts of energy, so raising energy costs will directly weaken rivals' ambitions in AI development.

Thompson also pointed out a key detail: The "closure" of the Strait of Hormuz is not only driven by Iran, but also by Western shipping insurers who have retreated in large numbers due to surging risks, which played a crucial role. The Trump administration once floated the idea of the federal government providing insurance for transiting ships, but swiftly abandoned it. Thompson believes this move aligns perfectly with the logic of "the government not wanting fuel to freely circulate."

Energy stocks surge, domestic political dilemma

Market data offers the most direct annotation for the above logic. According to Dow Jones market data team statistics, since the war broke out on February 28, the total market capitalization of U.S. listed energy companies has increased by $93 billion, 2026 revenue expectations have been raised from $1.9 trillion to $2.1 trillion, and net profit forecasts have risen 22%, reaching $183 billion.

Trump himself also openly stated that U.S. oil production has surpassed the combined total of Russia and Saudi Arabia, with a large number of ships loaded with oil departing the U.S., no need to pass through the Strait of Hormuz—this statement echoes the narrative that "the U.S. is the beneficiary of the energy crisis."

However, high oil prices have also created tangible political pressure domestically.

The retail price of gasoline in the U.S. has topped $4 per gallon for the first time in four years, and diesel prices are close to the historical high of $5.81 per gallon. The Trump administration announced the release of more than 170 million barrels of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and relaxed emission restrictions to try to stabilize prices, but Matt Smith warned this would only make U.S. crude more attractive to foreign buyers, thus aggravating outflows.

ClearView Energy Partners analyst Kevin Book says that as the midterm elections approach, the White House's position on export restrictions risks shifting. "A bad idea rejected at $4 per gallon could be revisited at $6 per gallon."

Futures markets expect WTI to gradually retreat from the current approximately $98 per barrel, with September falling to $80 and dropping to $75 before year-end. But analysts are pessimistic—the situation in Hormuz remains highly unstable; after the ceasefire announcement, Iran immediately declared it would close the strait again, and any lasting solution remains a distant prospect.

For investors, this means the fundamental logic of portfolio weighting in the energy sector has changed. Regardless of whether Trump's strategy is deeply calculated or accidental, in an environment of high oil prices, portfolios with energy exposure have already benefited from this crisis.

Risk Warning and DisclaimerThe market involves risks; investment needs caution. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not take into account individual users' unique investment goals, financial status, or needs. Users should carefully consider whether any opinions, viewpoints, or conclusions herein suit their own circumstances. Investments based on this article are at your own risk. ```