For years, the case for clean energy has been framed around the future. Lower emissions. Lower costs. Long-term resilience. But markets and policymakers rarely move on future benefits alone. They move when risk becomes immediate.

Over the past eight weeks, that risk has come into view.

The IEA’s executive director has described the current conflict in Iran as the greatest threat to global energy security in history. Peace talks have collapsed. The United States has announced a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which remains effectively closed. In a matter of weeks, core assumptions about stability which have underpinned decades of energy policy have been called into question. Can we count on the global fossil fuel system? 

What this moment has made clear is not just who was exposed, but how widely that exposure was shared.

The narrative that countries that invested in domestic renewables have buffers to conflict-driven energy shocks, while those that did not are more vulnerable, is incomplete. Even countries with little direct dependence on Gulf oil felt the shock caused by the war in Iran. Roughly 30% of global fertilizer trade passes through Hormuz, linking natural gas disruptions to food prices worldwide. For instance, in East Africa, countries with minimal oil exposure still faced rising food insecurity. 

Or take Japan, which entered the crisis with one of the world’s largest strategic petroleum reserves. Despite this, Japan’s currency weakened and its markets fell as supply chain........

© Time