U.S.-China Relations
NextFin News - Crude oil retreated on Monday as traders weighed President Donald Trump's abrupt decision to waive sanctions and tariffs on Russian energy against the still-unresolved risk to Middle East supply, with Brent crude futures falling $1.43, or 1.30%, to $108.43 a barrel by 2340 GMT. The move capped a week in which Brent briefly touched $110 a barrel, its highest level since May, as attacks on commercial vessels in the Persian Gulf cut crude flows to roughly 8.5 million barrels a day — less than half the more than 20 million barrels a day moving through the region the prior week.
The central tension facing oil markets is straightforward: a policy-driven supply opening from Russia is colliding with a war-driven supply closure in the Middle East, and the market has not yet decided which force will dominate. Trump's executive order, signed October 16 and released by the White House, waives key sanctions and tariffs that were scheduled to take effect October 18 under the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026 — legislation the president himself signed into law on September 18 after it passed the Senate 86-11 and the House 262-159. The order carries no expiration date, leaving the waiver in place until the administration determines that "further action is appropriate."
The Waiver and What It Actually Does
The first thing to be clear about is what the executive order does not do. It does not repeal the Graham Act. It does not lift the sanctions already in place against Russia. What it does is activate a release valve that Congress wrote into the law itself. Section 115 of the Graham Act authorizes the president to waive the application of any sanctions provision, restriction, or duty by submitting to Congress a written certification that the waiver is in the national interests of the United States, along with a report explaining the basis for that certification. Trump's order states that he has submitted both.
Section 4 of the order waives the application of duties provided for in Sections 112 and 113 of the Act. But the underlying tariff architecture remains standing. Section 2 of the same order still raises the rate of duty on goods from the Russian Federation by 500 percent ad valorem, subject to the exceptions in Section 114 and the waivers issued in Section 4. It also preserves a 100 percent ad valorem duty on goods from the five largest importers of Russian crude oil and natural gas if those countries knowingly make new purchases on or after October 18, 2026, and a matching 100 percent duty on the top five facilitators of Russian oil sanctions evasion.
The practical effect, therefore, is not a free pass for Russian energy but a pause button — one that gives Washington discretion it would not otherwise have had. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters over the weekend that the president would use up to 60 days to assess the economic impact of the sanctions and tariffs before deciding on a final course. The order specifies no expiration date, and with Congress in recess until after the November 3 midterm elections, there is little prospect of a quick legislative counter.
The timing is not incidental. The waiver follows Trump's announcement on October 9 of a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin under which Russia would supply diesel to the United States and global markets in an effort to bring down fuel prices that have roiled American voters ahead of the midterms. Trump said the arrangement would begin with cargoes this month totaling about 13.5 million barrels, released over three months — though energy consultancy Rapidan Energy assessed that Russia currently has the supplies to guarantee only about six million barrels of that commitment. Russia could restore diesel exports to 3 million to 3.5 million tonnes a month by the end of 2026, according to trade reports, though the first shipment of 300,000 tonnes — about 2.25 million barrels — would cover less than one day of US transport-sector demand on its own.
The legislation championed by the late Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina would have imposed tariffs of up to 100 percent within 30 days on all goods from the five largest importers of Russian crude or gas, as well as on any country that knowingly bought Russian oil or gas 30 days after enactment. Countries such as China and India, among the biggest buyers of Russian oil, had raised concerns about the bill, with Beijing saying it "consistently opposed long-arm jurisdiction that lacks a basis in international law" and New Delhi warning that new tariffs could impact bilateral ties. The waiver removes that immediate pressure on those relationships — and on the oil cargoes already floating at sea.
Two Supply Shocks Moving in Opposite Directions
The market's Monday decline reflects a recalibration of the risk premium built into prices during the previous week. Brent's run toward $110 had been driven less by actual supply losses than by the fear of them: at least 10 confirmed incidents involving commercial vessels were reported in the Gulf last week, according to shipping analytics firm Kpler, and intensified attacks cut the seven-day average of crude flows to about 8.5 million barrels a day from more than 20 million a day the week before. Separately, Kpler data cited by regional analysts showed Strait of Hormuz crude flows fell to approximately 8.5 million barrels a day in the week ending October 9, roughly 40 percent below pre-war levels, with tanker attacks hitting a wartime high of 11 in a single week.
That is a real shock — roughly 11.5 million barrels a day of flow disruption measured week over week — but it is also, critically, a flow disruption rather than a permanent destruction of production capacity. The distinction matters for how the market should price it. Pipelines, loading terminals, and tankers can resume moving once the security environment improves; the vessels themselves are insured, reroutable, or replaceable. What the market priced on Friday was the possibility that the Strait of Hormuz could be closed for an extended period. What it is pricing on Monday is the possibility that it will not be.
Against that, the Russian waiver adds a supply channel that was about to be closed. The question is how much volume it actually unlocks, and here the mechanics are indirect. The waiver works by removing the threat of secondary tariffs on buyers — the kind of threat that had been deterring some refiners from lifting Russian cargoes — rather than by physically adding new barrels to the market. Russian crude is already trading well above the roughly $59-a-barrel benchmark assumed in Russia's 2026 budget plan, giving Moscow a strong fiscal incentive to sell. But a fiscal incentive is not the same thing as deliverable volume, and the gap between the two is where the market's doubt lives.
This is where the two shocks diverge in market psychology, and it explains why the week's gains were only partially retraced rather than fully erased. The Middle East disruption is a visible, immediate, and escalating risk — every vessel incident is a data point that confirms the threat. The Russian supply opening is an invisible, contingent, and reversible possibility — every barrel that does not immediately appear is a reason for doubt. Markets tend to price visible risks more aggressively than contingent ones. A tanker attack is a headline; a waived tariff is a footnote. The market reacted to the footnote on Monday, but it has not stopped reading the headlines.
The Political Cost of an Energy Waiver
The waiver has drawn sharp criticism from both parties in Washington, framing it as a concession to Moscow at Ukraine's expense. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said the decision "seems wrong to me," adding that "it definitely helps only the Russians," and warned it would embolden Moscow to continue attacking Ukraine. On October 16, Russia struck more than 15 power generation and transmission sites in Ukraine, a reminder that the energy waiver arrives while Kyiv faces a stark winter.
Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, called the move "beyond irresponsible" and "unconscionable that this administration is capitulating to a Russian dictator." Senator John Cornyn of Texas said the late Senator Graham "would be appalled." Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said Trump was "thumbing his noses" at Congress and "enabling Vladimir Putin to continue his war of aggression." Representative Gregory Meeks of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, introduced legislation to block the diesel deal with Russia, calling it "corrupt."
The political arithmetic is constrained by the calendar. With the House and Senate in recess until after Election Day, Congress is not positioned to challenge the waiver quickly. Trump has said he was waiving the sanctions indefinitely, citing national security concerns. The result is that oil markets — and Kyiv — are left watching an executive-branch review process with no fixed deadline, in which every statement from Washington on Russia policy becomes a potential price event.
What the Market Has Priced, and What It Has Not
The consensus read — that the waiver is bearish for oil and the Middle East conflict is bullish — is correct but incomplete. The more important question is the asymmetry between the two risks. If Gulf flows recover to even half their pre-war level, the marginal barrel from Russia becomes less valuable and the risk premium evaporates quickly. If, however, the conflict escalates to a sustained closure of Hormuz, no amount of Russian waiver relief offsets the loss of roughly 20 million barrels a day of regional throughput. The upside risk to prices is physically larger than the downside relief.
That asymmetry argues that the market's current posture — lower on the day, but still well above its moving averages — is not a resolution but a pause. Brent's 50-day average sits near $98.40, and the contract remains close to its highest levels since May. West Texas Intermediate, the US benchmark, was at $100.88 a barrel on Monday, down 53 cents, or 0.52%. As of Tuesday morning, WTI was trading near $98.90 a barrel and Brent near $110, both up modestly as the two narratives continued to compete.
On the demand side, China, the world's largest crude importer, reported third-quarter growth that exceeded market forecasts, and separate figures showed refinery throughput increased for a third consecutive month in September, supported primarily by higher exports of refined petroleum products. That provided some support for demand expectations, though it did not prevent Monday's decline. The combination of firm demand and uncertain supply is precisely the environment in which price volatility tends to persist rather than resolve.
"The decision to undo all of this, to block all of it, seems wrong to me. It definitely helps only the Russians."
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, writing on X after the waiver was announced, captured the geopolitical stakes that oil traders must now weigh against the supply math.
The Adversarial Case: Why the Waiver May Matter Less Than Traders Think
The strongest argument against the view that Middle East risk dominates is that the Russian waiver is not marginal — it is structural, and it arrives with a political imperative behind it. An administration facing midterm elections with gasoline and diesel prices as a top voter concern has every incentive to keep the waiver in place and to expand it if needed. Secretary Rubio's 60-day review window is not a countdown to reimposition; it is a holding pattern that keeps the option open while prices stay elevated. If the administration's priority is lower fuel prices, the path of least resistance runs through Moscow, not through the Gulf.
There is also a precedent for markets underestimating how much sanctioned supply can re-enter the system once the legal threat is removed. The shadow fleet that has carried Russian oil since 2022 did not disappear; it was waiting for a price and a legal cover. A waiver provides both. If even a fraction of the 3 million to 3.5 million tonnes of monthly diesel export capacity that Russia could restore by year-end actually reaches global markets, the refined-product market — the segment most directly tied to pump prices and voter sentiment — would feel it faster than the crude complex.
This counter-thesis is serious, and it is backed by the administration's own stated priority. But it rests on two assumptions that the market cannot verify in real time: that Russia can and will deliver the volumes discussed, and that the waiver survives the 60-day review. Both are political variables, not physical ones. The falsifying signal for the view that Middle East risk remains dominant is specific and observable: if Gulf crude flows sustainably return toward 15 million barrels a day or more while vessel incidents fall toward pre-conflict levels for two consecutive weeks, the Middle East premium will unwind regardless of what Washington does with Russia. Until that happens, the burden of proof remains on the bears.
Conclusion: A Pause, Not a Resolution
The oil market is caught between two forces that operate on different time horizons. The Russian waiver is a policy variable — reversible, discretionary, and subject to a 60-day review that could end with sanctions reimposed. The Middle East disruption is a physical variable — it resolves only when the security environment changes, and it can worsen faster than any administration can react.
In the short term, the waiver is likely to keep a lid on prices as long as Gulf flows continue to improve and no new escalation occurs. In the medium term, the 60-day review window creates a recurring source of uncertainty: every statement from Washington on Russia policy becomes a potential price event, and the midterm elections on November 3 add a second deadline that traders will watch as closely as the review. In the long term, the structural question is whether the conflict has permanently raised the risk premium on Middle East crude — and on that question, the evidence so far points to yes. Iranian authorities have warned of further restrictions on the Strait of Hormuz if naval pressures continue, and battle-damage assessments of energy infrastructure have become a central variable in how traders price risk.
The beneficiaries of this setup are the producers outside the conflict zone — US shale, Brazil, and West African exporters — who can sell into a market that pays a war premium without bearing the war risk. The exposed are the refiners and consumers who must hold inventory through a market where the next headline can move prices by several dollars in either direction. And the ultimate arbiter is not Washington but the Strait: as long as fewer than 15 million barrels a day move through it, the market is not choosing between Russian supply and Middle East risk. It is holding both, and paying for the uncertainty.
Oil's Monday decline is not the market deciding the crisis is over. It is the market pricing a reprieve — and a reprieve is not the same thing as peace.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
