The conflict in the Middle East is forcing Washington to confront the physical realities of the energy market. Partisan debates about the energy transition have given way to harder questions about market fundamentals. Congress cannot repeal the laws of price formation, but it can strengthen the foundation of US energy leadership by removing obstacles to production and delivery.The first effects of a regional crisis are often psychological, but energy markets convert psychology into price signals almost instantly. Traders price in risk while barrels are still in transit. Shippers adjust routes before ports close. Refiners and utilities hedge against uncertainty before consumers see the bill. That's why a conflict thousands of miles away can drive up the cost of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, electricity and manufactured goods in the US.Oil trades in a global market, which means that US consumers pay the price of disruption wherever it occurs. A barrel lost in the Mideast Gulf still raises the marginal price paid in Houston, Rotterdam or Singapore. The question isn’t whether every US gallon comes from the Middle East, but whether the global system has enough flexible supply to replace lost barrels quickly enough to prevent panic pricing.Today, record US production is helping absorb that shock. More importantly, the country now has the capacity to act as a stabilizing force rather than a passive price taker.Energy Security ReturnsThat capacity matters when the Strait of Hormuz remains the world’s most important oil transit chokepoint. Roughly 20 million barrels per day of oil move through that corridor, along with about one-fifth of global LNG trade. Any disruption in the region reverberates around the globe. The Strait of Hormuz is not just a map point. It’s a reminder that energy security depends on physical routes, shipping capacity, storage, pipelines and export infrastructure.What distinguishes this moment from past crises is the scale of US supply and its effect on global market elasticity. US producers have increased oil output from 11.3 million b/d in 2021 to a record 13.6 million b/d in 2025, the highest level ever recorded by any country. Marketed natural gas production reached about 118.5 billion cubic feet per day in 2025. At that scale, US supply not only meets domestic demand but expands global capacity and dampens volatility.America’s Stabilizing RoleLNG is where America’s stabilizing role is especially visible. The US is now the world’s largest LNG exporter, with exports reaching roughly 15 Bcf/d in 2025 and expected to exceed 18 Bcf/d by 2027.After Europe learned the cost of dependence on Russian gas, US LNG cargoes were no longer just a commodity, they became strategic insurance. Every additional liquefaction train, pipeline connection and export terminal gives our allies more options and our adversaries less leverage.Those volumes represent physical supply that reduces the leverage of chokepoints, embargoes and regional instability. They also demonstrate that energy abundance can serve diplomatic ends. US energy does not eliminate geopolitical risk, but it gives policymakers, allies and markets more room to maneuver when risk turns into crisis.American energy dominance did not happen by accident. A decade ago, US LNG exports were minimal, and crude oil exports were constrained by federal policy. Congress changed that trajectory by repealing the oil export ban in 2015, while federal approvals and private investment cleared the way for large-scale LNG terminals, pipelines and production growth. Those decisions underpin today's energy security.Abundance Meets ConstraintInstead of resource scarcity, the constraint now is infrastructure scarcity.The US has not demonstrated the same ability to build the pipelines, export terminals, transmission links, storage facilities and refining capacity needed to move energy efficiently. Projects critical to national security face years of delay from overlapping reviews, litigation risk and regulatory uncertainty. The consequence is underinvestment in the delivery and refining systems that translate production into security.California offers a cautionary tale of how policy and infrastructure constraints can squander resource advantages. The state’s operable refinery count has fallen from 23 in 2000 to just 13, with additional closures threatening to reduce capacity further. A state that once benefited from a large refining base is increasingly exposed to higher costs, import dependence and supply disruptions. New England, despite its proximity to abundant Appalachian natural gas, still relies on LNG imports during winter because pipeline capacity into the region remains constrained. In both cases, policy choices have weakened resilience.Building Strategic ResilienceThe lesson for policymakers is that supply-side resilience must be built before a crisis, not during it. Congress proved that principle a decade ago when it enabled US energy production and exports. Maintaining that advantage now requires modernizing the federal permitting system so infrastructure can keep pace with supply.Permitting reform does not mean eliminating environmental safeguards. Congress can set enforceable deadlines for agency decisions, require a lead agency to coordinate duplicative reviews, limit endless relitigation of issues already studied and establish clearer rules for projects with national-security value. A permitting system that takes longer to approve infrastructure than markets take to move against consumers is a vulnerability, not a safeguard.Critics will argue that faster permitting risks weakening environmental protection, but there’s no reason that has to be true. A modern permitting system can preserve rigorous review while ending procedural paralysis. The choice is not between oversight and development. It’s between a predictable system that allows critical infrastructure to be built responsibly and an unpredictable system that leaves consumers, producers and allies exposed when the next crisis arrives.Every delay reduces the system’s ability to absorb the next shock. And there will be a next shock.The current crisis is a reminder that energy policy is national security. US energy production is stabilizing global markets in real time. The strategic task now is to ensure that infrastructure and permitting systems allow that production to reach consumers and allies when it matters most.In a dangerous world, US energy serves as both an economic asset and a strategic shock absorber for the free world.Guy Caruso is a former administrator of the US Energy Information Administration and a Center for Strategic and International Studies senior adviser in the Energy Security and Climate Change Program. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.