In an interview with the newspaper, The National, on 8 July 2026, when talking about the Strait of Hormuz situation, Dr Fatih Birol, the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), said that Gulf oil exporters “need to regain their reputation as reliable exporters.”
This description of producers amounts to a value judgement. Gulf producers, according to Dr Birol, are no longer trustworthy suppliers of oil. It is a statement that makes for an easy headline, but one that has several flaws.
OPEC does not dismiss the challenges related to a full reopening of the Strait. That said, others should not dismiss historical context and evidence with rhetoric and sweeping statements. This perspective matters.
For decades, the Strait of Hormuz has been a vital waterway for global trade and OPEC Gulf producers have been reliable suppliers of oil and petroleum products to consumers. They have supplied crude oil and refined products through multiple global and regional crises, including during some of the most turbulent events in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
This can also be viewed in the region’s producers investing heavily in upstream capacity, refineries, export terminals, pipelines and storage solutions to ensure that crude oil reaches global markets reliably. Regional producers have held spare capacity too, at a cost to themselves, which has been leveraged at times of past crisis. This has proven particularly beneficial to consumers.
Their reliability is also reflected in trade patterns that made the Strait of Hormuz so important. To suggest that their record has been fundamentally undermined by one crisis, which is still ongoing, is to pass judgement on long-term performance based on short-term turmoil.
Indeed, many of these producers have been at the forefront of actively seeking solutions that aim to reinforce security of supply. The totality of a country’s performance as a reliable supplier, backed by hard evidence and decades of data, should be the basis of any judgements.
For example, Europe status as an industrial powerhouse cannot be judged solely by the destruction of its manufacturing base in World War Two.
It is also important to accurately depict the nature of the disruption. The current crisis arose from military conflict and its impact on a maritime transit route. It is a systems-level vulnerability, not evidence that producers have failed to honour contracts.
A sound energy-security assessment would centre on the security arrangements around this vital sea route, rather than singling out producers to “repair their reputation.”
International and intergovernmental organizations should be a bridge between producers and consumers, providing shared reference points and analysis. This bridging role is hard to reconcile with public moralizing about ‘trust’ in media interviews.
Dr Birol’s trust narrative is also almost entirely framed from the perspective of consumers, despite the fact that robust analysis requires a holistic view. While buyers’ concerns are real, producers have a vital interest in stability too.
Casting doubt on the reliability of producers only a few months into a crisis caused by a temporary closure of a waterway is not beneficial to anyone. It can also potentially have real world consequences, particularly if it impacts investments.
The Strait remains important, and no-one should question the reliability of Gulf producers. In fact, the IEA should view them as active partners in seeking a secure resolution, not parties who need to ‘repair trust.’