The Trump administration significantly underestimated the possibility that Iran would move to close the Strait of Hormuz in response to US military strikes, leaving Washington scrambling to manage the economic fallout as the conflict disrupts one of the world’s most critical energy routes, according to sources cited by CNN.Officials familiar with internal discussions said the Pentagon and the US National Security Council did not fully account for such a scenario while planning the ongoing operation against Iran. The oversight has now left the administration confronting what some officials described as a worst-case situation, with global oil shipments under pressure and energy markets unsettled.

Strategic planning gaps

Sources cited by CNN said that although officials from the US treasury and energy departments were present during some planning meetings before the operation began, the detailed economic forecasts and inter-agency analyses that typically shape such decisions played a lesser role.Treasury secretary Scott Bessent and energy secretary Chris Wright were involved throughout the planning and execution stages of the conflict. But President Donald Trump’s preference for relying on a small group of close advisers limited broader debate across government agencies about the potential economic consequences if Iran responded by closing the strait, sources said.Top administration officials also acknowledged to lawmakers in classified briefings that the possibility of Iran shutting the waterway had not been fully planned for, according to CNN.The assumption within the administration was that such a move would harm Iran more than the United States. That view was partly shaped by earlier Iranian threats that did not materialise after US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities last year.

Shock across diplomatic and industry circles

The situation unfolding in the strait has left diplomats, former US economic officials and energy executives surprised.“Planning around preventing this exact scenario, impossible as it has long seemed, has been a bedrock principle of US national security policy for decades,” a former US official who served in both Republican and Democratic administrations told CNN. “I’m dumbfounded.” Shipping companies operating in the region have repeatedly requested military escorts from the US Navy for oil tankers, but those requests have so far been declined. According to two industry executives cited by the outlet, US military officials have said they have not received orders to begin escort operations and warned that risks to naval assets remain extremely high.

Limited options for Washington

US officials have indicated that Iranian drones, missiles and sea mines pose significant threats to vessels attempting to transit the narrow waterway. In military simulations of a potential conflict with Iran, one of the major risks identified was ships becoming tightly packed in chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz, Bab-el-Mandeb and the Red Sea, making them vulnerable to attack.Wright acknowledged the limits of current military capabilities.“It’ll happen relatively soon, but it can’t happen now. We’re simply not ready,” Wright said in an interview with CNBC, referring to potential naval escorts for commercial vessels.“All of our military assets right now are focused on destroying Iran’s offensive capabilities and the manufacturing industry that supplies their offensive capabilities,” he added.Bessent told Sky News that naval escorts would begin “as soon as it is militarily possible.”“That was always in our planning, that there’s a chance that US Navy, or perhaps an international coalition, will be escorting oil tankers through,” he said.

Iran signals pressure strategy

In his first public comments since taking office, Iran’s new supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei indicated that keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed could remain a “tool of pressure,” according to a statement read on Iranian state television.The warning has raised concerns in global energy markets because the narrow waterway is a key passage for oil and liquefied natural gas shipments from the Middle East.Energy industry executives have privately urged US officials to seek a quick end to the conflict, according to sources familiar with the discussions. Many companies are reluctant to send tankers through the strait while hostilities continue.

Trump downplays oil market turmoil

Despite the market volatility, Trump has continued to downplay the economic impact.“The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money,” he wrote on Truth Social.Trump said preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons remained his primary objective.“Of far greater interest and importance to me, as President, is stoping an evil Empire, Iran, from having Nuclear Weapons, and destroying the Middle East and, indeed, the World,” he wrote.The White House defended its planning process. “Through a detailed planning process, the entire administration is and was prepared for any potential action taken by the terrorist Iranian regime,” spokeswoman Anna Kelly said.She added that disruptions to energy markets would be temporary and would ultimately benefit the US economy in the long term.

Emergency measures under consideration

With energy markets under pressure, the administration is exploring several measures to ease the impact on fuel prices.The treasury department has already temporarily lifted sanctions on Russian oil shipments stranded at sea. The White House is also considering a limited waiver of the century-old Jones Act, which requires goods transported between US ports to be carried on American vessels.“In the interest of national defense, the White House is considering waiving the Jones Act for a limited period of time to ensure vital energy products and agricultural necessities are flowing freely to US ports,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to CNN.Officials are also examining regulatory changes to ease fuel production requirements during summer months in an effort to lower gasoline prices.However, experts warn such measures may only partially offset the impact of disruptions in global oil supply.“I think that it would be a very small potential offset compared to the factor that’s driving gasoline prices higher, which is concerns for the physical supply of refined products around the world, and also crude oil,” said Clayton Seigle, an energy expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.