The war's impact on Africa will be profound - but lessons learnt could spur a rapid energy transition to a more peaceful continent.
The world is embroiled in a war precipitated by the United States (US) and Israel's attack on Iran, resulting in the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other Iranian leaders. This, with Iran's retaliation, has triggered what International Energy Agency Executive Director Fatih Birol calls the worst energy shock ever recorded.
As with many global shocks, the impact on Africa will be extensive, stemming not only from its geographical proximity to the conflict, but also from its large dependencies on the Gulf partnership and fossil fuel products.
It may seem counterintuitive, but could this geopolitical crisis, with fossil fuel scarcity at its core, kickstart a move to renewable energy solutions and a lower carbon global economy?
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
Heightened tensions in the Gulf, particularly on the Strait of Hormuz, stress the point. According to the US Energy Information Administration, 20 million barrels of oil and a fifth of the world's petroleum products move through this narrow passage daily. A fifth of the world's traded gas passes through it.
The impact has been immediate, with oil prices soaring past US$100 per barrel mark, raising energy costs worldwide. G7 Energy Ministers are implementing contingency measures, including releasing strategic oil reserves at possibly unprecedented levels.
This could also escalate into a global food crisis. An immediate crisis could hit food-importing countries as well as African food growers and exporters like South Africa, Kenya, Tanzania, Egypt, Morocco, and West African coffee and cocoa producers. This is due to fertiliser shortages as Gulf oil and other ingredient supplies contract.
This affects Africa directly on both counts with fuel, energy and fertiliser playing a major role in all categories of commercial and subsistence farming. African agriculture is an economic mainstay, employing up to two thirds of the workforce, contributing on average 30%-50% of gross domestic product and 30% of export value. More immediate food shortages are likely in the wealthy Gulf countries, which depend heavily on imports for food security.
Harvard's Belfer Center links oil to 25%-50% of interstate conflict since 1973. It seems logical that a switch away from fossil fuels for both energy and agriculture towards renewable energy and more organic farming solutions would usher in lower risk pathways for human development.
A lower dependency on fossil fuels in favour of locally generated renewable energy removes much of this risk for non-oil producing countries. It also encourages oil producers to engage in economic diversification to reduce dependency on fossil fuel revenues.
In all, a lower global fossil fuel addiction would reduce risks of conflict. It would simplify energy logistics chains as frequent long-distance transport via oil tankers and pipelines would be needed less, and lower carbon budgets. This could also reduce pressure in other maritime choke points like the Suez and Panama canals.
But these equations, while mathematically elegant, have many nuances in the real world. A key constraint to energy transition, especially in Africa, has been finance. By the end of 2024, the Gulf countries - United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain - had invested US$101.9 billion in Africa's renewable energy sector.
This is both an important part of their quest to reinvent themselves as diversified global energy players, and to use African carbon markets as a key tool to balance their carbon budgets. Renewables also represent a growing investment sector in Africa.
A long war in the region would damage Gulf economies sufficiently to send shock waves worldwide, with the potential for a pullback of Gulf sovereign wealth funds. This could set up a catastrophic pathway for the global economy, perhaps for Africa especially, given its low economic diversification levels. This could negatively impact Africa's development agenda as a whole; and its climate adaptation efforts.
There are also other important risk factors associated with a renewable energy dominance in both the electricity and electric vehicle (EV) domains. Key among these is the global battle for Africa's mineral resources with a new special focus on critical minerals. But African leadership is hyper-aware of these risks and is engaging mitigation strategies, as seen at the February 2026 Investing in African Mining Indaba in Cape Town.
Interest in EVs has risen rapidly since the war started. A 20% surge has been recorded in the US; even more in Asia. Africa lags behind but is catching up, recording a US$17.4 billion market in 2025, projected to reach US$28 billion by 2030.
Ethiopia's move to ban fuel-powered vehicle imports and reduce EV tariffs has seen the increase of EVs from 1% of the market to 6%. This move, together with sourcing cleaner energy from the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam hydroelectric project, could see a multi-pronged rapid energy transition strategy representing a model for other countries to follow.
Movement in new energy vehicles together with Just Energy Transitions in South Africa, Senegal, Egypt, Morocco, Kenya and Namibia could support the African Energy Transition Programme. The programme works towards reaching the Agenda 2063 vision of industrialisation powered by low-carbon systems.
The Iran conflict has four big F-words - fuel, food, fertiliser and finance. All four are at catastrophic risk from the war. This critical global moment could either be remembered as a further step into the quagmire of sluggish global development, arrested climate action, and further global inequality or a catalytic moment for a global turnaround.
The possibility of the lessons of the war powering a rapid global energy transition to a more sustainable, safer and peaceful world should be embraced.
For permission to re-publish ISS Today articles, please email us. In Nigeria, Premium Times has exclusive rights to republish ISS Today articles.
Dhesigen Naidoo, Research Associate, Climate Risk and Human Security Project, ISS Pretoria
Facts Only
A hypothetical war involving the US, Israel, and Iran has resulted in the death of Iranian leaders, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The conflict has caused the worst energy shock on record, according to International Energy Agency Executive Director Fatih Birol.
The Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint, sees 20 million barrels of oil and 20% of global petroleum products pass through daily.
Oil prices have surged past $100 per barrel, prompting G7 nations to release strategic oil reserves.
African countries face food crises due to fertilizer shortages linked to Gulf oil supply disruptions.
African agriculture employs up to two-thirds of the workforce and contributes 30-50% of GDP in many nations.
Harvard's Belfer Center links oil to 25-50% of interstate conflicts since 1973.
Gulf countries have invested $101.9 billion in Africa's renewable energy sector by the end of 2024.
Ethiopia has banned fuel-powered vehicle imports and reduced EV tariffs, increasing EVs to 6% of the market.
The African Energy Transition Programme aims to industrialize using low-carbon systems by 2063.
The conflict risks destabilizing Gulf economies, potentially reducing sovereign wealth fund investments in Africa.
Global EV interest has surged, with Africa's market projected to reach $28 billion by 2030.
Executive Summary
A hypothetical war between the US, Israel, and Iran has triggered a severe global energy crisis, with oil prices surpassing $100 per barrel and disruptions to critical supply routes like the Strait of Hormuz. Africa faces significant economic and food security risks due to its reliance on Gulf partnerships and fossil fuels, with potential fertilizer shortages threatening agricultural output. The crisis has prompted discussions about accelerating a transition to renewable energy, which could reduce dependency on volatile fossil fuel markets and mitigate conflict risks tied to oil. Gulf nations have invested over $100 billion in Africa's renewable sector, but a prolonged war could destabilize these investments. Meanwhile, African countries like Ethiopia are advancing electric vehicle adoption and low-carbon energy projects, aligning with broader continental goals for sustainable industrialization. The conflict's impact on fuel, food, fertilizer, and finance could either deepen global inequality or catalyze a shift toward a more resilient, low-carbon economy.
The situation highlights the interconnected risks of fossil fuel dependency, geopolitical instability, and climate vulnerability. While renewable energy offers a pathway to greater stability, financial constraints and competition over critical minerals pose challenges. African leadership is actively engaging in mitigation strategies, but the outcome hinges on global cooperation and sustained investment.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative presents the Iran conflict as a catalytic moment for global energy transition, framing fossil fuel dependency as a root cause of geopolitical instability and economic vulnerability. It credibly highlights Africa's precarious position—caught between reliance on Gulf fossil fuels and the potential for renewable energy to foster independence. The argument gains traction by citing concrete investments (e.g., Gulf funds in African renewables) and policy shifts (e.g., Ethiopia's EV push), suggesting a plausible path toward decarbonization. However, the analysis leans heavily on a binary framing: either the war deepens global crises or it spurs transformative change. This risks oversimplifying the complexities of energy transitions, which require not just capital but also technological infrastructure, political will, and equitable resource governance.
Patterns detected: **ARC-0024 Ambiguity** (the hypothetical war scenario blurs the line between analysis and speculation), **ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey** (the argument retreats to "lessons could spur transition" when pressed on feasibility).
Root cause: The narrative assumes that energy transitions are primarily constrained by financial and geopolitical barriers, underplaying structural inequalities in global energy systems. It echoes post-Cold War "resource curse" theories, where fossil fuels are framed as inherently destabilizing, but it doesn’t fully interrogate how renewable energy markets might replicate similar power imbalances (e.g., mineral extraction conflicts).
Implications: If the transition accelerates, African nations could gain energy sovereignty, but the cost may include new dependencies on critical mineral supply chains controlled by external actors. The second-order effect could be a scramble for African resources under the guise of "green development," mirroring colonial-era extraction patterns. Who benefits? Gulf investors diversifying portfolios; tech firms supplying EVs. Who bears costs? Subsistence farmers facing fertilizer shortages, or communities displaced by mining.
Bridge questions: How might African nations ensure that renewable energy projects serve local development rather than foreign carbon offsetting? What safeguards are needed to prevent "green colonialism" in critical mineral supply chains? Would a fossil fuel phase-out reduce conflict, or simply shift its theater to new resource battlegrounds?
Counterstrike scan: A coordinated influence campaign would amplify the "crisis-as-opportunity" framing to push pre-existing agendas (e.g., Western renewable tech exports, Gulf carbon market expansion). The actual content aligns partially—it advocates for transition but stops short of prescribing specific solutions or actors, avoiding overt propaganda. The hypothetical war scenario, however, serves as a high-stakes emotional hook, which could be exploited to rush policies without adequate debate.