The war in the Middle East shows how much the world has become dependent on steady supplies of oil and gas, writes The New York Times, in an analysis published on the day that a barrel of oil crossed the $100 mark.
The year 2026 reminds us that oil still has a major influence in geopolitics and the global economy, from the capture of Nicolas Maduro to the war in the Middle East, writes the American publication.
“Oil remains both a trophy, as in the case of Venezuela, and a powerful tool of political coercion, as the US embargo against Cuba shows,” points out the New York Times.
“The post-oil world remains distant”
And he also gives some concrete examples. The oil crisis of the 1970s, caused by production cuts by OPEC countries, caused the price to quadruple in just a few months. Even if conditions are no longer the same, the disruption to oil flows will strain economies around the world.
“The old game has come back to a greater degree than people thought was ever possible,” said Elliott Abrams, who was special representative for Iran and Venezuela during the first Trump administration.
And that's because the world remains dependent on steady supplies of hydrocarbons, even though two-thirds of the funds now spent in the energy sector go to cleaner alternatives, such as solar energy.
According to the International Energy Agency, oil accounts for less than 30% of energy produced globally, but the world uses almost double the amount it needed in the early 1970s. As for the share of natural gas, it has increased, notes journalist Rebecca Elliott, who specializes in energy at The New York Times.
“The post-oil world remains far into the future. We are in the early to middle stages of the energy transition, but energy transitions take time,” said David Sandalow, a researcher at Columbia University's Center for Global Energy Policy.
With the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world's oil production and substantial amounts of natural gas pass, other problems have arisen.
Several refineries in the region, several of them damaged by bombing, have closed or reduced the processing of oil into diesel, gasoline and kerosene, leading to price increases. Qatar has stopped cooling natural gas for export.
“The Energy Weapon Never Went Away”
Oil has once again become a geopolitical weapon and economic threat at a time when the US is shaking up trade relations and clashing with other major powers.
“The energy weapon never went away, but it was a confluence of global conditions and then decisions by the Trump administration that brought it back to the fore. Energy can be a tool of foreign policy, but it can also be a goal,” writes Harvard University professor Meghan O'Sullivan.
This is shown by the case of Venezuela, where the US has gained access to oil resources, and Cuba, which is facing an energy blockade aimed at overthrowing the communist regime.
Iran is doing the same with its ability to disrupt the flow of oil and natural gas through the Strait of Hormuz, showing how exposed countries that depend on energy imports are. Their reactions may vary, but faster adoption of renewable energy is likely. The US may continue to rely on domestic oil and natural gas resources, at least during the Trump administration.
On the other hand, clean energy has other geopolitical risks, such as a greater dependence on China, which dominates the production of solar panels, wind turbines and rechargeable batteries, the quoted source writes.
But the major advantage is that once the infrastructure for solar and wind energy is in place, the energy sources themselves cannot be taken away, the New York Times points out. “You can't weaponize the sun, you can't weaponize the wind,” says Catherine Wolfram, deputy assistant secretary for climate and energy in the Treasury Department during the Biden administration.
