The escalating confrontation involving Iran, the United States, and Israel is being read through a familiar lens: missiles, deterrence, and the risk of regional escalation. But this framing misses the deeper crisis already underway, one that extends far beyond the battlefield.
This is an energy shock with global consequences. At the center, lies the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow corridor through which nearly 20 per cent of the world’s oil supply flows. Since late February, the route has been effectively paralyzed by heightened conflict risks and attacks on commercial shipping. Tanker traffic has dropped sharply, at points nearing a standstill, with over 150 vessels stranded outside the strait.
This is no longer a temporary disruption but a systemic shock to global energy flows. Energy analysts now warn that the scale of supply loss is approaching that of the twin oil crises of the 1970s combined. Oil prices have already surged past $120 per barrel, while natural gas markets, less flexible and harder to reroute, face even deeper structural strain. Damage to liquefied natural gas infrastructure alone could take years to repair, embedding long-term volatility into global energy systems.
The effects are already cascading. Reports indicate that at least 40 major energy facilities across the Middle East have sustained significant damage, raising concerns about long-term production capacity. Industry leaders caution that if disruptions persist beyond a few months, the crisis could evolve into a broader systemic risk to the global economy.
Such shocks rarely remain confined to the regions in which they originate. In an interconnected global economy, disruptions to energy supply quickly transmit through trade, finance and production systems. For many developing economies, this transmission is both immediate and severe.
This is particularly true for Pakistan. As a net energy importer with limited fiscal space, Pakistan is highly exposed to external price volatility. Rising fuel costs translate directly into inflation, widening import bills, and renewed macroeconomic pressure. In a matter of weeks, a distant conflict begins to reshape domestic realities, from electricity tariffs to food prices.
Yet the most consequential impact may be less visible: the erosion of climate progress. In recent years, countries such as Pakistan have begun to articulate more ambitious climate pathways, encompassing adaptation planning, renewable expansion and energy transition strategies. These efforts, however, rest on a basic assumption: a degree of global stability. Predictable markets, functioning supply chains and sustained international cooperation are essential to their success.
War, however, has a way of dismantling these conditions. As energy security becomes paramount, governments fall back on what is available rather than sustainable. Cleaner but infrastructure-dependent fuels lose ground, long-term transition plans are deferred, and climate finance, already insufficient, risks being diverted towards defense and crisis management.
Such shifts are rarely explicit. They emerge through postponed investments, revised budgets and altered priorities. The Russia-Ukraine War offered an early warning: despite strong climate commitments, European states expanded coal use and sought alternative fossil fuel supplies when gas flows were disrupted. The current crisis threatens to replicate, and deepen, this pattern.
At the same time, modern conflicts increasingly intersect with the infrastructure that sustains civilian life i.e., energy, transport and water systems, amplifying their impact far beyond national borders. For the Global South, this creates layered vulnerability. Countries least responsible for geopolitical tensions bear disproportionate economic costs while already facing heightened climate risks. Rising fuel prices feed into food inflation, while fiscal constraints limit the capacity to absorb shocks.
This raises a broader question: can climate policy remain insulated from geopolitics? Climate action depends not only on targets and technology, but on stability, reliable supply chains, sustained financing and international cooperation. In a world shaped by conflict, these conditions cannot be assumed.
For Pakistan, the implications are clear. Climate resilience must be pursued alongside energy and economic security. Reducing dependence on imported fuels, accelerating domestic renewable capacity, and diversifying energy sources are no longer just environmental goals, they are strategic necessities.
Globally, the outlook is sobering. As geopolitical tensions intensify, coordinated climate action will become harder to sustain. Targets may endure on paper, but their realization will grow increasingly uncertain.
Wars do end. Their consequences do not. The present conflict is a reminder that the greatest threat to climate progress may not be inaction alone, but the instability of the world in which that progress must unfold. The question is no longer whether climate goals are ambitious enough, but whether they can endure in a world at war.
(The writer is a doctoral student in Land Resources and serves as a research associate at the Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI))
LinkedIn: @ebadatibnbabar
Email: ebadaturrehman@sdpi.org
© 2026 SDPI. All Rights Reserved Design & Developed by NKMIS WEB Unit
