Why Reducing Gas Usage is a Strategic Imperative
I'm processing the news of the US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. It's far too soon to know the full consequences of this action, and there are already strong, compelling arguments being made on all sides. The decision was risky, and we may come to regret it. Or it may prove to have been necessary.
Rather than add one more voice to that debate, I want to step past it and ask a more practical question: now that the decision has been made, what's the best way to live with it and move forward? How can we make the best of this new reality?
I’m going to make the case that one of the most patriotic and strategically vital actions for many Americans right now is to figure out how to use less gasoline. This isn't primarily an environmental argument, though it has those benefits. This is a hard-nosed strategic argument for strengthening America's hand in a newly dangerous world.
The Coming Disruption: The Strait of Hormuz
The most predictable response from Iran is to disrupt shipping in the Persian Gulf, closing the Strait of Hormuz just as the Houthis did in the Red Sea. This is no small threat. The Strait of Hormuz is the world's most important oil chokepoint.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), about 21 million barrels of oil pass through the strait every day, representing about 20% of global consumption.
I agree with Noah Smith that the economic consequences are less scary than what is probably the common assumption. But while the US, and even Europe is better insulated than most, we are not immune. More importantly, allies in Asia are not. Taking away this leverage from our adversaries is paramount. The obvious answer is to maximize US oil exports. But it would be short-sighted to think that increasing production is our only move. We have another, more immediate weapon at our disposal: reducing our own demand.
The Global Chessboard: Why Your Commute Matters to Seoul and Tokyo
Reducing US demand isn't just about saving a few dollars; it's about freeing up supply for a global chessboard. While our first thought might be of Europe, they have already made significant strides in reducing their oil dependency. The real pressure point is Asia.
The EIA confirms that the vast majority of crude oil transiting Hormuz is destined for Asia—primarily China, India, Japan, and South Korea. In the event of a crisis, having available export capacity would allow us to support critical allies like Japan and South Korea. It would also give us tremendous leverage over China, which relies heavily on that oil, and India, which currently buys significant amounts of Russian oil. We would have something to offer, a tool to ensure our allies remain stable and to influence the decisions of our rivals.
Putting the Numbers in Perspective
It’s easy to feel like individual action is just a drop in the ocean. So let's crunch the numbers. The world needs to figure out how to replace the 21 mbpd of oil that could be taken offline. The puzzle has several pieces:
Rerouting: Saudi Arabia can bypass the strait by sending about 3.5 mbpd through its East-West pipeline to the Red Sea.
Increased Production: The US and other producers can ramp up, but this takes time.
Demand Reduction: Other countries can and will cut back their own usage.
Strategic Triage: Roughly 5 mbpd of the affected oil is destined for China. In a crisis, the US is unlikely to prioritize stabilizing their supply.
Our key allies, like Japan and South Korea, and other friendly nations in the region need a combined 6 to 8 mbpd to remain stable. This is where we come in.
The US consumes about 9 million barrels of gasoline per day. A collective 5% reduction in our consumption would free up nearly half a million barrels per day (0.5 mbpd).
Is half a million barrels enough to solve the entire problem? No. But it is a substantial down payment. It is a tangible, immediate contribution that strengthens our diplomatic hand, helps allies, and weakens the hands of petro states we should not trust.
What We Can Do: A Two-Part Call to Action
First, If you want America and its allies to have the strongest position to manage what comes next, you should be motivated to make personal changes:
Use Public Transit: If you have the option, shift trips from your car to a bus or train.
Work From Home: If your job allows it, work from home. Managers can lead by immediately offering more flexibility.
Be Efficient: If you have multiple cars, make a conscious choice to use the more fuel-efficient vehicle more often.
Accelerate Efficiency Upgrades: While the national car fleet can't change overnight, if you have an inefficient vehicle, consider replacing it now. Opting for a more fuel-efficient model or an EV accelerates a change that might have otherwise happened more slowly.
Rethink Long-Distance Travel: That long weekend road trip or drive to see family in another state uses a significant amount of fuel. Postponing even one of these bigger trips can have an outsized impact.
Second, and more importantly, we must advocate for this as a national strategy. Personal change is less than what we should seek. We need to talk about why this is important and encourage leaders to repeat it. It would be naive to call this topic non-partisan. The decision and how it was made need questioning. But that shouldn’t prevent the logical shared interest.
For those who supported the decision to strike, this is the logical follow-through. President Trump, having committed America to these strikes, should have interest in the strongest position. A national call to conserve fuel is a way to do that. For those who opposed the decision, this is about making the best of the current reality and ensuring the most stable outcome possible.
Whether one views the original decision as bold or reckless, our shared goal should be to navigate the consequences successfully. By taking action in our own lives and calling on our leaders to do the same, we can collectively create strategic options completely within our control, strengthening America's hand when we need it most.