Recent geopolitical events—from the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines to the wars involving Russia and Iran—raise uncomfortable questions about the relationship between energy markets, military power, and political interests.

In a recent op-ed in Euractiv, energy expert Thierry Bros suggested that Washington may be pursuing a broader strategy aimed at reshaping global oil and gas flows. According to this view, conflicts and sanctions could gradually weaken competing energy exporters while reinforcing the position of the United States and its allies in global energy markets.

Whether one agrees with this interpretation or not, it deserves serious consideration.

The military-industrial complex and energy markets

The idea that powerful economic sectors influence foreign policy is hardly new. As early as 1961, U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower warned about the growing influence of the military-industrial complex in shaping American strategic decisions.

Today, the economic stakes involved in defense and energy are enormous. Armed conflicts generate massive demand for weapons systems, while disruptions to energy supply often shift market share toward producers capable of increasing output quickly.

For example, the war in Ukraine accelerated Europe’s transition away from Russian gas and led to a surge in imports of LNG (liquefied natural gas), particularly from the United States. The restructuring of energy flows was dramatic—and costly for Europe.

The unresolved question of Nord Stream

The destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines in September 2022 remains one of the most consequential and least understood events in recent European energy history. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has argued that the pipelines were sabotaged in a covert operation involving U.S. and Norwegian actors, a claim that the White House has dismissed as “utterly false.”

While no Western leader pushes for definitive conclusions, what is certain is that the attack eliminated a major energy link between Russia and Europe and accelerated Europe’s shift toward alternative suppliers.

War, markets, and strategic interests

Recent conflicts in Venezuela and Iran raise similar questions. Would the United States have supported actions that severely harmed its own strategic industries—such as the defense sector or domestic oil producers? Probably not.

Does this prove the existence of a coordinated strategy driven by corporate interests. Maybe not. But it does suggest that geopolitical decisions rarely occur in a vacuum. Policies that persist over time tend to align—at least indirectly—with the economic interests of powerful domestic sectors, and history shows that wars and geopolitical crises frequently reshape energy markets, benefiting certain producers while weakening others.

Europe’s strategic dilemma

For Europe, the central lesson may be less about assigning blame and more about recognizing structural vulnerabilities. The European Union has spent decades discussing “strategic autonomy,” yet its energy system remains deeply dependent on external suppliers and geopolitical alliances. Meanwhile, the global energy system is becoming more fragmented and more competitive.

In such a world, relying excessively on any single partner—even a long-standing ally—creates risks. As Henry Kissinger once famously observed: “The United States has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.”

If that principle still applies today, Europe must ask itself a difficult question. Should it continue to assume that its economic and energy interests will always coincide with those of Washington? Or is it time for Europe to begin de-risking its strategic relationship with the United States, just as it has attempted to reduce its dependence on Russian energy?

A debate Europe can no longer avoid

These questions may be uncomfortable. But they are also unavoidable. Energy markets, geopolitics, and security policy are becoming increasingly intertwined. Understanding that reality requires looking not only at official narratives but also at the economic incentives that shape global power politics.

Europe’s future prosperity—and strategic autonomy—may depend on how seriously it takes that challenge.