Is Trump's America the new master of global energy, ready to enrich itself thanks to war? A seemingly bold thesis. But it could be exactly that. Analysts are doing the math, and a harsh truth emerges: with the extra profits of new energy order The unfortunate conflict between the United States and Israel and Iran could generate up to $170 billion a year in additional profits for the US economy from liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports if energy traffic in the Persian Gulf were to remain blocked for a year, independent British analysts tell us. Energy Flux in a detailed relationship.
Already today, with tensions in the Gulf, combined with the energy disruptions of the war in Ukraine, "the additional profitability for US twin exporters is estimated at around $870 million per week compared to pre-crisis levels," the British report states. The comparison with the estimate of global war spending currently engaging America is stark: the extra profit accrued by Trump's US from war scenarios corresponds with a good approximation to the war spending total that is currently engaging the USA in the Gulf. But if we take into account the long-term effect resulting from the new balances and new routes of energy raw materials in the world, then all this represents for Trump's America a safe investment for future colossal profits.
All the accounts of the Hormuz crisis
The beauty (so to speak) is that the British analysts' estimates refer only to the substitution effect of LNG exported from Qatar, which is currently the most robust supplier of liquefied gas in the area, but not the only one either for Europe or for other markets. In any case, with "aprolonged interruption “From LNG supplies from Qatar,” the increased profit for the US “could reach nearly $170 billion within a year,” the report says.
Clearly, everything depends on the duration of the crisis in the Persian Gulf and the possible total or partial closure of oil routes through the Strait of Hormuz. The US can, however, tighten its grip. In the event of a full-blown blockade, a one-month outage – Energy Flux estimates – would generate approximately €3,8 billion in additional profits, three months would generate nearly €20 billion, and six months would generate nearly €70 billion.
But who will bear the brunt of these extra profits? British analysts remind us that a full 84% of the hydrocarbons passing through Hormuz are headed for Asia (China, India, Japan, and South Korea) and that exports to Europe are relatively limited: just over 1.2 million barrels of equivalent oil products per day, about 5% of the total. But Europe, and Italy with it, still pays a heavy price. redefinition of routes of imports resulting first from the Ukrainian crisis and now from the Gulf crisis.
The new volatility of oil prices
Temptations to reopen Russian hydrocarbon imports aside, we really should be concerned. Oil price volatility is once again becoming more pronounced. War scenarios in the Gulf have already caused Brent futures to soar by well over 20%, while TTF gas prices for European trade have doubled, with immediate consequences for our bills and car fueling. The recent reversal shouldn't be misleading. And it's LNG that should worry us most, given that the hydrocarbon import map in recent years has shifted the bulk of our imports and therefore our dependence onto liquefied gas, which still costs significantly more than double compared to pipeline gas, assigning a growing role to routes from the United States.
The scenario in the Gulf acts as an accelerator, if not a multiplier, of our LNG imports from the USA compared to the already existing ones. problematic estimates at the beginning of 2026, when analysts predicted a growth in dependence on gas imported into Europe from the US to 75-80% within the next four years. All this through agreements that have already severely compromised European commitments. It should be remembered that the agreement reached in July last year by the European Commission and the US to find a compromise on Trump's tariffs committed Europe to massively increase imports of US energy products, not only LNG but also oil and nuclear fuels, to around $750 billion by 2028.
What changes for us Italians
In all this, Italy is in a decidedly bad position with respect to the risks of a dangerous growth in dependence, precisely as a consequence of our growing recourse to “saving” LNGIn 2025, our imports of liquefied gas (which we then feed into the grid by reprocessing at our Porto Levante terminals in Rovigo, Livorno, and Panigaglia, in addition to the floating units in Piombino and Ravenna) exceeded the gas imported from Algeria, historically our primary pipeline supplier, allowing us to offset the substantial disruption in supplies from Russia. Thus, last year, LNG covered approximately a third of Italy's natural gas consumption, with the United States already accounting for 45% of imports by ship, followed by Qatar with 25,8%.
There is enough to fuel the debate, or rather the clash, between the strategy what our country could or should implement to reverse the spiral of our global energy dependence. What to do? With the plan for Italy's return to nuclear power which is struggling amidst a thousand doubts and certain popular opposition, and which in any case will only be able to look forward to a future which is not too far off, is currently being discussed controversy on the new emergency strategy already implemented by the Meloni government to stem the energy effects of the Ukrainian crisis, now amplified by the conflict in the Gulf.
Energy policy wanted
The controversy concerns the Italian decision to sterilise the ETS (Emission Trading System, i.e. the tradable European titles on emissions) charges which directly affect the production of electricity with gas, shifting the burden from the producing companies to the usual controversial addition on bills. The problems are on two fronts: method and substance.
The method, established in article six of the so-called "DL bills" passed in February to contain the final costs of energy, is openly contested by the European Union which is preparing to officially reject it considering it not only evasive but also in open contradiction The purpose of the ETS system is to discourage the most polluting energy production in favor of renewables, which still account for half of our electricity production. Energy from renewables, which would be doubly penalized by the transfer of ETS to the bill, would be penalized at source because it would no longer enjoy the benefit, and in final consumption because that energy would suffer a proportionate transfer to the bill. A pro-gas, anti-renewables choice? In fact, that's true.
On the merits, the question then arises as to whether the mechanism will produce actual benefitsAccording to the intentions, the "round-trip" effect (the producers' burden would be transferred to bills) would be mitigated by the belief, or more precisely, the hope, that the push to reduce costs on the wholesale market would be more vigorous than the final surcharge. This thesis, as is well understood, is visibly flawed. As is our entire energy policy.
