Watch the full Global Energy Forum
As the 2025 Global Energy Forum convened on Tuesday in Washington, DC, just blocks away at the White House, national security officials were mulling over the US response to the war between Israel and Iran.
“Right now, Iran has a choice,” Brett McGurk, distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council and former White House coordinator for the Middle East region, said at the Forum.
“The White House offered a deal to Iran about six weeks ago . . . Iran not only did not really respond to that; it actually escalated its nuclear program in the face of this,” McGurk said, pointing to activities at the Fordow nuclear site.
For McGurk, if Iran accepts the nuclear deal, “this crisis would be over.” But if it doesn’t, it would be “looking at the possibility of a US strike on Fordow.”
When it comes to escalation in the Middle East, Helima Croft—global head of commodity strategy and MENA research at RBC Capital and a member of the Atlantic Council Board of Directors—said that “the risk of this spilling over into energy is low. But it’s not zero.”
Below are more highlights from the conversation, moderated by William F. Wechsler, senior director of the Rafik Hariri Center & Middle East programs at the Atlantic Council, where Croft and McGurk also talked about the United States’ response options and the region’s future.
The objectives
- McGurk said that if he were in the Situation Room, he would list three objectives for the commander in chief: The first is to protect Americans and defend Israel—which would involve “surging defense interceptors.” The second is to “contain this to Israel and Iran” and “avoid a broader regional escalation.” The third, McGurk explained, is to work with Israel on succeeding in their objectives: “dismantlement of the nuclear program and the missile program.”
- McGurk said that what happens in the next week “is potentially quite decisive,” because it could weaken Iran’s influence in the region. That, he said, would set “conditions for a much more peaceful, integrated Middle East that we all want.”
- “You talk about a decisive historical period: We’re living in it,” he said.
The options
- McGurk said that a military response has previously had “massive risk” associated with it, but “Iran has made a series of fateful strategic miscalculations” since October 7, 2023, reducing those risks.
- One such risk was the possibility of retaliation from an Iranian proxy group, such as Hezbollah; but that is “no longer a threat,” McGurk said, with Hezbollah indicating that it does not want to be involved in this latest exchange of strikes.
- Another risk was Iran’s air defense, including its use of Russian air defense systems, but that risk has faded as “Israel has complete air supremacy” over Iran. “So the window of availability for a military option is now very open,” McGurk said.
- He added that he could see the US administration using the threat of this military option to “try to get a deal.” But if that deal does not come to fruition, “then we have to be prepared to actually do the strike,” McGurk added. “And I think you do have to back it up.”
- “The worst case here would be to leave Iran with that Fordow [site] and ten cascades [of advanced centrifuges] intact,” McGurk said. “So it’s a deal or it’s a military strike.”
The impact
- Croft said that the market is “very sanguine” about the energy risks associated with the conflict. “We have ample supply on the market right now,” she noted.
- If the United States decides to launch an attack on Fordow, Croft said, there would be “a little pop” in prices. But the bigger concern among market players is whether Iran plans to “internationalize” the costs of this war, such as by rallying its proxy groups in targeting tankers and shipping corridors such as the Strait of Hormuz.
- That could yield some temporary disruption. “I don’t think the market would be prepared for the export infrastructure being struck,” she said.
- She added that there is also concern “about risks to other countries’ energy facilities where they may not have taken the necessary steps to fortify those facilities.”
- Until the war inflicts a massive impact on oil supply, Croft said she would not expect a “preemptive surge” of barrels from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). “They are already unwinding a voluntary cut,” she said. “OPEC has made it pretty clear: They’re not going to fill a gap in the market until one emerges.”
- Croft added that there is much at stake in achieving a stable, prosperous Middle East region, as governments continue to build more resilient societies and to diversify their economies. “Having a stable security environment is so important for the millions of young people in the region whose futures really rest on everything that these governments are trying to undertake,” she said.
Katherine Golden is an associate director on the Atlantic Council’s editorial team.
Editor’s note: RBC Capital Markets is a sponsor of the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Forum. More information on Forum sponsors can be found here.
Further reading
Tue, Jun 17, 2025
UAE Minister Sultan Al Jaber on how to solve AI’s energy conundrum
New Atlanticist By Katherine Golden
Meeting the demand for energy associated with AI "is not just a technical challenge,” but a “once-in-a-generation" opportunity, Al Jaber said at the 2025 Global Energy Forum.
Mon, Jun 16, 2025
Twenty questions (and expert answers) on the Israel-Iran war
MENASource By
The escalation between Israel and Iran has raised many important questions about a region already facing crises on multiple fronts.
Mon, Jun 16, 2025
How the US can reduce the risk of wider war in the Middle East
New Atlanticist By Caroline Zier
Five steps taken now can help put the White House in a better position to manage the spiral of escalation between Israel and Iran.
Image: Helima Croft and Brett McGurk speak at the 2025 Global Energy Forum in a conversation moderated by Will Wechsler on June 17, 2025 in Washington, DC.