An unprecedented Israeli airstrike on Iran’s core natural gas field has not only triggered immediate supply disruption fears in the crude oil market but also prompted a reassessment of the true power structure within the U.S.-Israel alliance amid ongoing Middle East tensions. The key question emerging is: Who truly holds control—the United States or Israel?

The incident began with an attack on the South Pars gas field. On Wednesday, March 18, local time, the energy-related red line in Middle East geopolitical conflicts was effectively crossed. According to reports, the Israeli Defense Forces struck facilities associated with the South Pars gas field located in Iran’s southern Bushehr Province.

Sources cited statements from Israeli officials indicating that the targeted facility processes approximately 40% of Iran’s natural gas and that the strike was "carried out in coordination with the United States." This marks the first direct military attack on Iran’s upstream oil and gas assets since the escalation of recent hostilities.

In response to the attack, Iran’s National Gas Company issued a statement confirming that facilities at the South Pars gas field were struck by hostile forces, resulting in a fire. However, the statement emphasized that there were no casualties, the fire has been fully extinguished, and natural gas production has continued under safe conditions, with national energy supply remaining unaffected.

Market reaction was intense. Brent crude oil surged more than 6% during trading, approaching the $110 per barrel threshold.

Why is this bombing particularly dangerous? Before examining the strategic interplay between the U.S. and Israel, it is essential to recognize a core reality: the South Pars gas field is not only a vital asset for Iran but also a potential weak point in global energy markets.

South Pars is the world’s largest known natural gas reservoir, shared by Iran and Qatar. It serves as the foundation for Iran’s electricity generation, industrial feedstock, and winter heating, and is also a critical gas source for countries like Turkey.

Analyst Saul Kavonic of MST Financial highlighted the severity of the situation: “Destroying production capacity equivalent to millions of barrels would have a massive impact, as it means that even after hostilities end, replenishing inventories would be impossible.”

To use an analogy, past attacks on oil tankers or blockades of shipping lanes were like blocking a water pipe—flow could resume once the obstruction was cleared. But directly bombing upstream gas fields and LNG facilities is akin to destroying the well itself.

If the “well” is destroyed, repairs could take years. Historical experience from the 2003 Iraq War shows that, despite sufficient funding, reconstruction of energy production facilities often takes far longer than expected, directly raising long-term risk premiums for energy supply.

In retaliation for the attack on its core upstream asset, Iran has initiated a chain reaction. The commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy warned that U.S.-related oil facilities and military bases are now considered legitimate targets and will be fully targeted. Iran has also reportedly drawn up a “strike list” that includes key refineries and gas fields in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.

Iraq’s power supply has already been severely affected—due to the disruption of Iranian gas supplies, Iraq has lost over 3.1 gigawatts (GW) of electricity generation capacity.

According to Umud Shokri, a senior visiting scholar at George Mason University, shifting targets from military installations to core energy production zones signals that the geopolitical conflict has officially evolved into an economic and energy war of attrition. Israel appears to be pressuring Iran by striking at its economic heart, but this strategy increases the fragility of interconnected energy systems.

Who is calling the shots? Has Israel fully “controlled” Trump? This is the underlying question that markets and investors are most concerned with. If the bombing of energy facilities is the surface-level event, the power dynamics between the U.S. and Israel in this attack represent the underlying reality.

According to U.S. officials cited in reports, former President Trump was informed in advance of Israel’s plan to strike the South Pars gas field and expressed support, intending to send a message to Iran in response to its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

The same officials indicated that Trump believed “Iran had received the message” and therefore opposed further attacks on Iran’s energy infrastructure, stating that he did “not want additional attacks on Iranian energy facilities.”

However, the situation took a dramatic turn. In a social media post on March 18, Trump publicly claimed that the United States had “no prior knowledge” of Israel’s attack on Iranian oil and gas facilities and emphasized that Qatar was not involved in any way.

Trump stated that Israel would not launch further attacks on the “extremely important and valuable” South Pars gas field unless Iran decides to target Qatar, which he described as “completely innocent” in the incident. He further threatened that if Qatar’s LNG facilities were attacked again by Iran, the U.S. would “completely destroy the entire South Pars gas field with a force Iran has never seen.”

This public statement sharply contradicts earlier reports from “anonymous U.S. officials” claiming Trump was informed and supportive. The discrepancy raises questions: Were U.S. officials lying, or is Trump attempting to distance himself?

This significant policy uncertainty, along with the conflicting narratives from high-level U.S. sources, is a major source of market anxiety. On social media, financial influencers, geopolitical analysts, and users have engaged in heated debate over whether the U.S. or Israel is in control.

One viewpoint suggests that the U.S. has been “reverse-controlled” by Israel. Many analysts argue that Trump’s “no prior knowledge” claim indicates that Washington has lost control of the situation, becoming a passive participant.

Energy and commodities columnist Javier Blas noted two possibilities regarding the South Pars attack: either Israel informed the U.S., and Washington either acquiesced or did not object—which is bad—or Israel informed the U.S., and Washington failed to persuade its war partner to halt the attack—which is very, very bad. The key question remains: Who decides on escalation—the U.S. or Israel?

Influencer Waqas Inayat stated bluntly, “We are witnessing a ‘very, very bad’ script. If Washington has lost leverage over its ‘junior partner’ (Israel), we have entered an unpredictable, rogue escalation phase. The global energy market is now being dictated by a ‘tail wagging the dog’ scenario.”

User Ammanichanda added, “Israel wields unimaginable influence over the U.S.; they can do as they please. This is not an exaggeration.”

User Markk commented, “At this stage, I am almost entirely convinced that U.S. foreign policy has been hijacked by Israel.”

From a market perspective, if Israel is an “unleashed wild horse” not restrained by the U.S., then Trump’s statement opposing further attacks carries little credibility. The risk of consecutive destructive attacks on Middle East energy facilities would be fully priced in by the market.

A second perspective argues that appearances are deceiving and that the U.S. remains the ultimate decision-maker. Some analysts contend that Israel is merely acting as the “bad cop” for the U.S.

User QuantCappers pointed to key data: “Israel is a U.S. dependent. The U.S. provides $4 billion in annual military aid to Israel, accounting for 10% of its total military budget. ‘He who holds the purse strings holds the power.’”

User Ant-i offered a nuanced analysis: “It’s the dog wagging the tail, not the other way around. In this case, the ‘tail’ (Israel) serves as a convenient scapegoat. This allows the U.S. to act with deniability and redirect external anger.”

User EndGame2030 posed a critical question: “Does Washington want us to suspect Israel? But is that the truth? Is Israel merely the ‘bad cop’ doing the dirty work for its patron?”

A third interpretation suggests the attack may be part of a carefully orchestrated political and market maneuver. Analyst Shashank Joshi cited an Israeli Channel 12 report in which a senior Israeli official stated that Israel’s assistance was intended to convey a U.S. message: “Either the Strait of Hormuz is reopened and mines are cleared… or the entire (gas) facility will be destroyed, along with others.”

This would explain Trump’s stance: The gas field attack was not aimed at destruction but at maximum pressure. If Iran complies by reopening the Strait of Hormuz, the energy conflict may halt. If Iran remains defiant, Trump could easily give the green light for further strikes.

In summary, the bombing of the South Pars gas field drove oil prices toward $110 per barrel not only due to the real risk of losing millions of barrels of oil and gas equivalent per day but also because markets perceive that an unrestrained “energy war” strategy is becoming normalized.

Whether the U.S. is pulling the strings behind the scenes or Israel has “controlled” U.S. decision-making, the outcome points to the same reality: The dense energy network in the Persian Gulf has become a sword of Damocles hanging over the global economy. As long as this fragile nerve remains tense, extreme volatility in energy markets will persist.