Follow us on social

How the US could cut off Middle East oil to China if it wanted

How the US could cut off Middle East oil to China if it wanted

In the event of a conflict between Beijing and Washington CENTCOM could direct its forces to block crucial energy shipments.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

As the dominant power in the Middle East, the United States maintains a great deal of leverage over China, which is dependent on the region for its energy needs.

In the event of a conflict between China and the United States, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) could direct U.S. military forces to block energy shipments to China, thereby preventing the country from accessing resources to fuel its economy and military forces.

“God forbid there’s ever a conflict with China, but we could end up holding a lot of their economy at risk in the CENTCOM region,” General Erik Kurilla, the commander of U.S. Central Command, told Congress at a hearing in March.

For decades, the United States has been the dominant power in the Middle East. Many of the region’s countries are closely aligned with the United States, relying on U.S. military and economic assistance. Several countries host U.S. military bases, and more than 30,000 U.S. soldiers are deployed throughout the region.

“U.S. posture in the Middle East remains significant,” Defense Department official Celeste Wallander explained in a written statement to Congress.

Having fought several major wars in the region—in Afghanistan, in Iraq, against the Islamic State—the U.S. military has built an infrastructure that enables it to quickly surge U.S. forces into the area.

“DoD is ready to rapidly flow significant forces into the region and to integrate those forces with partners based on decades of military cooperation to enhance interoperability and address any contingency,” Wallander noted.

U.S. officials value the CENTCOM region for its energy resources. The area includes nearly half of the world’s known oil reserves and more than 40 percent of its natural gas. It currently produces 37 percent of the world’s oil and is home to several top oil producers in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), including Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

There are several maritime oil transit chokepoints in the region, including the Suez Canal, the Bab al-Mandab, and the Strait of Hormuz. Any disruption to these chokepoints could significantly affect countries that depend on the region’s oil.

“The central region remains among the most important regions in the world,” Kurilla noted in a written statement, citing all these factors.

Although the United States is less dependent on the region’s oil today than it has been in the past, U.S. officials insist that the Middle East remains strategically important. As long as other countries continue to depend on the region’s energy resources, U.S. officials believe that they can use the region to influence the development of these countries and perhaps even impede it.

“Seventy-two percent of all Chinese oil is imported,” Kurilla explained. “That can make them vulnerable.”

As of 2021, China was one of the world’s largest consumers of oil, second only to the United States. China has become one of the world’s top producers of oil, but the country does not produce enough oil domestically to meet its needs. Today, China imports more oil than any other country in the world.

Among China’s oil imports, about half comes from the Middle East. For some time, Saudi Arabia has been China’s largest source of oil imports, only to be recently surpassed by Russia.

“Energy and investment linkages between China and the MENA region appear likely to grow at least through 2030, particularly in the Persian Gulf region,” the Congressional Research Service noted in a March 2023 report, referring to the Middle East and North Africa region.

During previous eras of great power competition, the United States has been willing to move against oil-dependent rivals. One precedent for the current situation is U.S. action against Japan in the months prior to U.S. entry into World War II. Months before Japan launched its attack against the United States at Pearl Harbor, the United States cut off oil exports to Japan, putting the country’s economy and military power at risk. U.S. officials made the move knowing that it might lead to war.

According to historian David Painter, the U.S. move created a situation that “led directly to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and other U.S. bases in December 1941,” as Japan decided to go to war to seize oil fields in Southeast Asia.

Although U.S. officials have shown little interest in taking similar action against China, they know that China remains vulnerable to such a move. By maintaining a large U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf, the United States is preserving the option of quickly mobilizing its military forces to block energy shipments to China.

A particular focus of any U.S. military action would be the Strait of Hormuz, the region’s major oil transit chokepoint. Nearly all of China’s energy imports from the Middle East are shipped through the strait.

“Ninety-eight percent plus goes through by ship,” Kurilla said. “That makes them vulnerable.”

As U.S. officials continue looking for ways to maintain strategic advantages over China, they appear less interested in working with China to address greater problems, such as the existential threat of climate change. Bilateral communications between China and the United States on the issue of climate change are faltering, despite the fact that the two countries are the world’s largest consumers of oil and emitters of greenhouse gases.

Even as climate experts insist that countries must rapidly transition away from the use of fossil fuels, U.S. officials continue to prioritize their geopolitical planning, including the possibility of using oil as a weapon against China. U.S. officials believe that U.S. predominance in the Middle East provides them with powerful leverage over China, and they are not willing to give it up, regardless of the consequences for the environment and the world.

“I believe CENTCOM is literally and figuratively central to competition with China and Russia,” Kurilla said. “We’ve been there in the past… We’re there today, and we’ll be there in the future.”

This article has been republished with permission from Foreign Policy in Focus.


Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.