Iran

The deal Western nations, China, and Russia struck with Iran on its nuclear program opened the door for Western energy companies to gain access to the Islamic Republic’s vast energy resources. Tillerson, as CEO of Exxon, was cautious about the prospects of any such a deal, telling CNBC in March:

U.S. companies like ours are still unable to conduct business in Iran. A lot of our European competitors are in, working actively. I don't know that we're necessarily at a disadvantage. The history of Iranian—in foreign investment in the past, their terms were always quite challenging, quite difficult. We--never had large investments in Iran for that reason. And I don’t know that the Iranians are gonna be any different today. We’ll have to wait and see and there hasn’t been any contracts put out. But I also learned a long time ago that sometimes being the first in is not necessarily best. We'll wait and see if things open up for U.S. companies. We would certainly take a look because it's a huge resource-owning country.

Trump has called the deal with Iran “disastrous” and has pledged to tear it up once he’s in office. If that were to occur, it would be Tillerson’s job to explain to U.S. allies, as well as his friends in Moscow, the rationale for the decision.

Energy independence and trade

The idea of energy independence has had bipartisan support in Washington since President Nixon announced his plan to wean the U.S. off of foreign sources of energy. And though the U.S., through the energy boom of the past few years, has come closer to achieving this goal, Tillerson has said he believes global interdependence—not energy independence—is the way to stability. In 2007, he told the Council on Foreign Relations:

Should the United States seek so-called energy independence in an elusive effort to insulate this country from the impact of world events on the economy, or should Americans pursue the path of international engagement, seeking ways to better compete within the global market for energy? Like the Council's founders, I believe we must choose the course of greater international engagement. ... The central reality is this: The global free market for energy provides the most effective means of achieving U.S. energy security by promoting resource development, enabling diversification, multiplying our supply channels, encouraging efficiency, and spurring innovation.

Those views carry over to free trade. In 2013, Tillerson said of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal:

Even when a nation does not have a rich endowment of resources, we have learned that open markets and free trade can bring nations the energy supplies they need. But only governments can open the avenues of free trade. In the years ahead, as the economy and energy landscape evolves worldwide, leaders in the United States and Asia will need to examine how their own policies can support international cooperation and energy trade. One of the most promising developments on this front is the ongoing effort for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The eleven nations that have been working to lower trade barriers and end protectionist policies under this Partnership are a diverse mix of developed and developing economies. But all of them understand the value of open markets to growth and progress for every nation.

That position puts him at odds with Trump, who wants the U.S. to leave the TPP because, in his view, it hurts American workers. Trump has also said he wants to renegotiate U.S. trade deals with partner countries in order to protect U.S. workers. One of the president-elect’s first moves was, Trump said, to persuade Carrier, the air-conditioning company, not to ship some of its jobs to Mexico. But in October 2014, Tillerson questioned such moves: “By restricting trade or picking winners and losers, government hinders investment and innovation,” he said.