20th October 2026
The US president wants to demonstrate strength, but rising oil prices, threatened shipping and mounting costs for households suggest the economic consequences may be running in the opposite direction.
Donald Trump’s approach to the conflict with Iran is facing an uncomfortable test. Brent crude has climbed above $111 a barrel, reaching a five-month high as renewed attacks on shipping and energy infrastructure have raised fears of further disruption to global oil supplies.
The price rise is more than a movement on a financial market screen. It is a warning that military pressure and economic uncertainty can carry a heavy price, not just for the countries involved but for households and businesses thousands of miles away.
Reuters reported on 20 October 2026 that Brent reached $111.05 a barrel amid heightened regional tensions and reports of attacks on Saudi energy infrastructure. Tanker attacks and concerns about the security of shipping have added to the market's anxiety. Although oil flows have not been entirely halted, traders are pricing in the risk that supplies could be disrupted further.
For Trump, that presents a difficult contradiction. A policy intended to weaken Iran and strengthen American security can also make energy more expensive for American consumers and businesses.
The oil price is only part of the problem
The world does not need to run out of oil for prices to rise sharply. Traders respond to the possibility of future shortages, while shipowners, insurers and energy companies must take account of the risks involved in moving supplies.
The Strait of Hormuz is particularly important. It is a vital route for oil and other energy exports from the Gulf. If vessels cannot pass safely, or if insurance and freight costs rise sharply, the effects spread through the market.
The problem is not confined to the price of crude. Reuters reported on 20 October that tanker costs had soared, with shipping oil from the United States to Asia costing as much as $40 a barrel on some routes. Refiners must also contend with the cost and availability of the crude they need to keep operating.
That means even countries with alternative suppliers can face higher prices. Oil is traded in a global market, and a serious disruption in one region can affect prices elsewhere.
Could Trump be helping to create the problem he wants to solve?
The answer depends on how success is measured.
If the objective is to put economic and military pressure on Iran, the US administration may argue that the pressure is necessary to achieve its wider aims. But if the objective also includes stable energy markets, affordable fuel and confidence among businesses, the results are much harder to defend.
Iran can suffer economically from restricted exports and military action. Yet disruption to shipping can also give Tehran leverage by increasing the costs faced by other countries. The longer uncertainty persists, the greater the risk that oil prices remain elevated.
This is not to suggest that Trump alone is responsible for every movement in the oil market. Attacks by other regional actors, the decisions of oil producers, shipping risks and wider supply conditions all matter. But American decisions are a major part of the geopolitical picture, and markets react to the consequences rather than simply the intentions behind them.
There is a political cost too. Higher petrol and diesel prices are particularly visible to voters. If Americans feel that energy has become more expensive while the conflict continues without a clear resolution, the administration could find that its foreign policy is damaging confidence at home.
Britain and Scotland cannot escape the consequences
The effects are likely to reach the UK through several routes. Higher crude prices can push up the cost of petrol, diesel, aviation fuel and heating oil. Transport companies, farmers, manufacturers and food distributors may face higher operating costs, some of which could eventually be passed on to customers.
For rural Scotland, the exposure is particularly clear. Many people in Caithness and other remote areas depend on cars because public transport cannot meet every journey. Farmers and hauliers rely heavily on diesel, while households using heating oil have little protection from international market movements.
The timing is also troubling. As winter approaches, households already struggling with the cost of living may face further pressure from energy and transport bills. Businesses operating on tight margins will have to decide whether to absorb rising costs, increase prices or reduce other spending.
There is a danger of a chain reaction. More expensive fuel raises distribution costs; higher distribution costs put pressure on food and other prices; and persistent inflation makes it harder for interest rates to fall. The final effect depends on how long oil prices remain high, but the risk is real.
What would bring prices down?
The clearest route to a sustained fall would be a credible reduction in the threat to shipping and a reliable restoration of normal oil flows. Diplomatic progress that reassures markets could help, while further attacks or escalation could push prices higher.
The US administration may also seek to increase available supplies or ease restrictions on some oil exports. Such measures can help at the margin, but they cannot fully compensate for prolonged disruption to a major shipping route.
Ultimately, markets need evidence that the danger is receding, not simply assurances that a solution is close.
Strength is not the same as success
Trump may believe that applying pressure is necessary to secure American objectives. But a strategy should be judged by its results as well as its intentions.
Brent above $111 does not prove that his entire policy has failed. It does, however, show that the oil market remains deeply concerned about the consequences of the conflict and the security of energy supplies.
For households in Britain, the argument in Washington may seem distant. The cost of filling a car, running a farm or ordering heating oil is not.
If the result of a policy intended to demonstrate strength is more expensive energy, greater uncertainty and a fresh squeeze on living standards, then a difficult question remains: is Trump gaining the strategic advantage he wants, or is the world paying an ever-higher price while the conflict continues?