Birol told Swiss newspaper Neue Zuercher Zeitung that recovery timelines would vary across countries, with some producers facing longer setbacks than others. He said overall output in the region was expected to return to pre-war levels in roughly two years, citing uneven infrastructure damage and differing production capacities.

He cautioned that markets may be underestimating the consequences of continued instability in the Strait of Hormuz, a key artery for global oil and gas shipments. While cargoes dispatched before the outbreak of hostilities have largely reached their destinations, he said the absence of new shipments in March was beginning to create supply gaps, particularly for Asian markets.

“No new tankers were loaded in March,” Birol said, adding that if the strait remains closed, the shortfall could translate into sustained upward pressure on global energy prices.The disruption comes amid heightened geopolitical tensions in the region, which have curtailed production and complicated export logistics.

Energy analysts have pointed to the Strait of Hormuz as a critical vulnerability, handling a significant share of global seaborne crude and liquefied natural gas flows.Birol said the IEA remained prepared to intervene through coordinated releases of emergency oil reserves, following a similar move earlier in March aimed at stabilizing markets.

He added that while such action was not yet imminent, it remained under active consideration should supply conditions deteriorate further.

The waiver replaces a previous 30-day authorization that expired on April 11 and permits transactions involving Russian crude and petroleum products already loaded at sea, while continuing to exclude dealings tied to Iran, Cuba and North Korea.

The move follows pressure from energy-importing countries, particularly in Asia, grappling with supply disruptions and elevated costs.A Treasury spokesperson said the decision was linked to broader efforts to stabilize markets as diplomatic engagement with Iran intensifies. “As negotiations with Iran accelerate, Treasury wants to ensure oil is available to those who need it,” the spokesperson said.

The extension marks a reversal from comments made earlier in the week by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who had indicated the administration would not renew waivers covering Russian and Iranian oil. The Iranian waiver, issued on March 20, had facilitated the flow of roughly 140 million barrels into global markets, according to Bessent’s prior statements.

Global oil prices fell about 9% on Friday to around $90 per barrel after Iran temporarily reopened the Strait of Hormuz, a critical transit route for global crude supplies. However, the conflict now entering its eighth week has already caused extensive disruption, with more than 80 oil and gas facilities in the Middle East reported damaged, according to the International Energy Agency.

Tehran has warned it could again close the strait if U.S. naval actions targeting Iranian ports continue, raising the risk of renewed supply shocks. The war has been described by the agency as the most severe disruption to global energy supply in history.

The administration’s decision also reflects domestic political pressures, as elevated fuel prices pose risks to Republican candidates ahead of the November midterm elections. U.S. officials said the issue was raised during meetings on the sidelines of G20, World Bank and International Monetary Fund gatherings in Washington, where partner countries urged continued flexibility on supply.

Trump also discussed oil markets during a recent call with Narendra Modi, whose country remains a major importer of Russian crude.The waiver has drawn criticism from lawmakers across party lines, who argue it risks undermining sanctions aimed at curbing Russia’s revenue from its war in Ukraine while also easing pressure on Iran during its confrontation with the United States.

European officials have voiced similar concerns, with Ursula von der Leyen stating that sanctions relief would be premature.Russian presidential envoy Kirill Dmitriev said the policy signaled ongoing economic and energy engagement between Washington and Moscow, adding that earlier waivers could release volumes equivalent to nearly a day of global oil output.

Analysts said the measure underscores the limited policy options available to policymakers confronting simultaneous geopolitical crises and market instability. Brett Erickson of Obsidian Risk Advisers said the damage to global energy systems may be enduring, warning that “the tools available to stabilize them are nearly exhausted.”

IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said that while March deliveries largely reflected cargoes loaded before the crisis escalated, the situation has shifted significantly. “During the month of April, nothing has been loaded,” he told reporters following meetings at the International Monetary Fund, adding that prolonged disruption would intensify market pressures.

Birol said the agency is tracking damage to energy infrastructure across the region, noting that more than a third of over 80 affected facilities have sustained severe damage. He described the situation as a major energy security challenge with global implications, warning that no country would be insulated from the fallout.

IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva said there is an urgent need to assess the scale of economic impact stemming from infrastructure losses tied to the conflict.World Bank President Ajay Banga said the institution is preparing for multiple scenarios depending on the duration and intensity of hostilities, including expanded financial support.

The IMF has indicated it can make up to $50 billion available, while the World Bank has outlined potential financing of up to $25 billion, with the possibility of increasing total support to $60 billion over six months if conditions worsen.

The conflict, triggered by U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran beginning February 28, has disrupted flows through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery for global oil shipments. Iran’s actions to impede maritime traffic, followed by a U.S. naval blockade, have heightened concerns over supply constraints and price volatility.

Although a two-week ceasefire was agreed last week to enable negotiations, talks in Islamabad failed to produce a breakthrough, raising uncertainty over whether the truce will hold.

International mediators, including Pakistan and Qatar, have urged both sides to maintain the ceasefire, while UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for the restoration of freedom of navigation in the region.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told lawmakers in Berlin that while Iran must not threaten regional stability, Washington had failed to present a credible plan or request European participation. “To this day, there is no convincing plan for how this operation could succeed,” he said, adding that the United States had neither coordinated with allies nor outlined the necessity of their involvement.

His defense minister, Boris Pistorius, struck a similarly firm tone earlier in the week, stating, “This is not our war, we have not started it,” underscoring Berlin’s reluctance to be drawn into a widening confrontation linked to U.S. and Israeli actions.

French President Emmanuel Macron echoed Germany’s position, saying Paris was not a party to the conflict, reflecting broader unease among European capitals about both the rationale and execution of the U.S. initiative.

The near closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery for global energy shipments, has heightened economic concerns, placing pressure on governments to respond to rising risks to trade and supply chains. However, European leaders have signaled that any response must be coordinated, measured, and grounded in clear strategic objectives.

Merz, who has long advocated strong transatlantic ties, adopted notably direct language, highlighting a shift in tone among U.S. allies faced with what they perceive as unilateral decision-making in Washington.

Despite differing national interests, European leaders have sought to maintain a unified front, prioritizing diplomatic coherence while managing relations with an unpredictable U.S. administration.

Officials across the region have emphasized the importance of avoiding escalation, even as they acknowledge the broader security implications of instability in the Gulf. Their stance suggests a recalibration of transatlantic dynamics, with greater emphasis on consultation and multilateral engagement.

The divergence comes at a time when global markets remain sensitive to disruptions in energy flows, and policymakers weigh the risks of deeper military entanglement against economic and security considerations.