It took just a few months of rising oil prices for the Trump administration to suddenly discover the virtues of pragmatism with Iran. Read more: trump replays gulf Read more: breaking trumps iran Scott Bessent, Treasury Secretary, dropped yesterday what looks like an admission of powerlessness disguised as strategy: "the government could even take the paradoxical step of lifting certain sanctions on Iranian oil" to bring down global prices.
Paradoxical, really? Or simply revealing what we all know but no one dares say: American foreign policy has never been guided by immutable principles, but by electoral arithmetic and popularity polls.
Iran, a Flexible Enemy According to Circumstances
Let's recall the facts. For decades, Washington has presented Iran as the embodiment of evil in the Middle East. Economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, military threats: the entire arsenal of American power has been deployed to "contain" Tehran. Successive administrations have explained to Americans that every dollar of Iranian oil financed international terrorism and destabilized the region.
But now prices are soaring, inflation threatens, and suddenly this same administration discovers that "lifting sanctions on Iranian oil would bring down global prices," as Bessent declared according to the New York Times. Trump himself doesn't mince words: "I would do whatever is necessary to bring down oil prices."
Whatever is necessary. Including, therefore, enriching this regime that has been demonized for so long.
Variable Geometry Geopolitics
This potential about-face is not just a simple tactical adaptation. It reveals the profoundly opportunistic nature of American foreign policy, where "vital interests" are redefined according to electoral cycles and domestic concerns.
After all, if Iran really was this existential threat described by Washington think tanks, how can we justify suddenly offering it considerable financial windfall? If the mullah regime effectively finances international terrorism, as Pentagon reports hammer home, why give it the means to do more of it?
The answer is disarmingly simple: because Americans vote with their wallets, not with their geopolitical convictions. And a president who lets gas hit $4 per gallon has little chance of surviving politically, whatever his diplomatic prowess elsewhere.
The Infantilization of Citizens in Action
What's striking in this affair is the casualness with which the administration assumes this contradiction. No coherent explanation is provided on how this measure fits with the overall strategy toward Iran. No acknowledgment that this decision invalidates years of discourse about the Iranian regime's dangerousness.
American citizens are treated like children incapable of understanding the subtleties of realpolitik. They're served simplistic slogans when sanctions need justifying, then course is changed without explanation when circumstances require it. This systematic infantilization feeds precisely the cynicism and distrust that we claim to combat.
The Real Winners of This Hypocrisy
Who benefits from this inconsistency? Certainly not American citizens, who deserve a readable and assumed foreign policy. Certainly not the diplomatic credibility of the United States, already damaged by decades of reversals.
The real beneficiaries are authoritarian regimes worldwide, who can now point to this hypocrisy to relativize their own contradictions. Tehran, in particular, can savor this victory: after resisting maximum pressure, it finds itself courted by the very ones who wanted to strangle it economically.
A Poorly Assumed Lesson in Realism
There would be an honest way to present this evolution: recognize that the maximum sanctions policy has failed, that Iran has survived economic pressure, and that we must now deal with this reality. Admit that American interest can sometimes require dealing with regimes we disapprove of.
But that would suppose treating citizens as adults capable of accepting the world's complexity. It would imply renouncing the Manichean narratives that simplify political communication but impoverish democratic debate.
Instead, we're witnessing a balancing act where principles are claimed to be maintained while being cheerfully trampled. A hypocrisy that fools no one, except perhaps those who practice it.
Iran hasn't changed in a few months. What has changed is the Trump administration's perception of its own electoral interests. The rest is just communication.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Why is the Trump administration considering lifting sanctions on Iranian oil?
The Trump administration is contemplating lifting certain sanctions on Iranian oil as a strategy to lower rising global oil prices, which have been contributing to inflation. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent indicated that this move could be seen as a pragmatic response to economic pressures rather than a shift in foreign policy principles.
Q: How has American foreign policy towards Iran changed over time?
American foreign policy towards Iran has historically portrayed the country as a significant threat, employing economic sanctions and military threats to contain it. However, the current administration's willingness to consider lifting sanctions reflects a shift driven by domestic economic concerns rather than a consistent ideological stance.
Q: What does Trump's statement about oil prices imply about U.S. foreign policy?
Trump's statement that he would do "whatever is necessary to bring down oil prices" suggests a flexible approach to foreign policy, where decisions are influenced by electoral needs and public opinion rather than steadfast principles. This indicates a potential redefinition of what constitutes a "vital interest" in U.S. foreign relations.