THE FRAGMENTATION OF THE GLOBAL ENERGY ORDER
Executive Summary
The 2026 Middle East crisis has become the most consequential energy-security shock of the twenty-first century, and it is not over. Triggered by the United States-Israel military campaign against Iran that began on 28 February 2026 — including the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — the conflict has passed through open war, a formal ceasefire (8 April), a bilateral memorandum of understanding intended to end hostilities within sixty days (signed 17 June), and a subsequent collapse of that arrangement. As of 17-18 July 2026, the United States and Iran are trading strikes for a sixth consecutive night, Iran has struck US-linked and allied targets in Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Syria, and commercial transit through the Strait of Hormuz remains near a standstill. Brent crude, which peaked above US$120 per barrel in late April, fell into the low US$70s during the June de-escalation, and has since rebounded above US$88 amid the renewed hostilities.
This paper argues that the durable legacy of the crisis is not the price of oil on any given day but a structural break in the assumptions that have underpinned globalized energy trade since the end of the Cold War: secure maritime commons, just-in-time logistics, and concentrated transit chokepoints. The crisis has demonstrated that the credible threat of closure can produce economic effects comparable to actual interdiction, and that this threat, once demonstrated, cannot be fully "unlearned" by markets or governments even after a ceasefire is signed.
The paper examines the consequences across seven dimensions—Persian Gulf Cooperation Council's loss of its safe-haven narrative, Asia's forced acceleration of energy diversification, Europe's re-securitization of energy policy, the debt and food-security multiplier effects on the Global South, the return of state interventionism, and the emergence of alternative Eurasian transit corridors—before presenting a Bayesian scenario analysis of four possible trajectories to 2030. Based on the trajectory of events through mid-July 2026, prolonged fragmentation is assessed as the modal near-term outcome, while accelerated energy regionalism is assessed as the most probable structural outcome by 2030 regardless of how Persian Gulf conflict itself is ultimately resolved.
I. Chronology and Strategic Anatomy of the Crisis
Understanding the durability of the current disruption requires a precise chronology, since the crisis has not followed a single arc from shock to resolution but a recurring cycle of escalation, negotiated pause, and renewed escalation that has itself become a defining structural feature.
The war began on 28 February 2026, when the United States and Israel conducted a joint campaign against Iranian military and nuclear facilities, killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei among more than 2,000 fatalities, including at least 216 children according to Iranian authorities. Iran responded by declaring the Strait of Hormuz closed to foreign shipping and launching missile and drone strikes against Israel, US bases in the region, and Persian Gulf states hosting American forces. Shipping through the Strait, which had averaged roughly 110 vessels per day before the war, collapsed within 48 hours, and war-risk insurance premiums rose roughly one-hundred-fold, from approximately 0.05 percent to more than 5 percent of a vessel's insured value, effectively pricing commercial traffic out of the waterway even where physical passage remained possible.
After more than five weeks of fighting, Pakistan-mediated talks produced a ceasefire on 7-8 April 2026, though it was violated by both sides in its early hours and required a further US extension. Islamabad-hosted follow-on talks failed, and on 13 April the United States imposed a naval blockade on Iranian ports. A memorandum of understanding announced by mediators on 14 June, and signed by the American and Iranian presidents on 17 June, was intended to bring the conflict to a formal end within sixty days; the US lifted its blockade on 18 June and commercial traffic through the Strait surged the following day.
That recovery proved short-lived. Iranian forces struck three vessels near the Strait on 7 July, prompting the United States to resume airstrikes on Iranian territory. On 12 July Iran again declared the waterway closed; the following day President Trump insisted the Strait remained open in a legal sense while reinstating the naval blockade against Iranian-flagged and Iran-bound shipping. By 17 July, US Central Command reported its sixth consecutive night of strikes on Iranian military and logistics sites, and Iran retaliated with strikes against Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Syria — including an attack that damaged a power and desalination facility in Kuwait and killed a foreign worker. Commentary from the Christian Science Monitor and other outlets on 17 July described the ceasefire as "defunct in all but name," noting that American public appetite for further escalation to extract concessions from Iran appears limited even as US strikes continue.
This pattern — war, ceasefire, brinkmanship, a negotiated framework, and renewed war — is itself analytically significant. It indicates that the underlying political conditions for a durable settlement (Iranian succession politics following the killing of Khamenei and his son Mojtaba's assumption of the role, unresolved nuclear and missile questions, and the absence of a mutually acceptable Hormuz governance arrangement) have not been resolved by any of the three ceasefire or memorandum episodes to date. Markets and Persian Gulf governments now appear to be pricing in a structurally elevated probability of recurrence rather than a return to the pre-crisis baseline.
II. The Strategic Significance of the Strait of Hormuz
The Strait of Hormuz remains the world's most important energy chokepoint. Under pre-crisis conditions the US Energy Information Administration estimated that approximately 20 million barrels per day of crude oil and petroleum products — roughly one-fifth of global petroleum liquids consumption — transited the Strait, alongside close to one-fifth of global LNG trade, concentrated overwhelmingly in exports from Qatar and, to a lesser extent, the United Arab Emirates. Hormuz-transiting LNG accounted for an estimated 27 percent of Asian LNG imports and roughly 7 percent of European inflows in 2025, meaning the risk was asymmetrically concentrated in Asia even before the crisis, a fact confirmed by the scale of the price response in Asian benchmarks relative to European ones.
The concentration of these flows through a channel some 33 kilometres wide at its narrowest navigable point has long been recognized as a systemic vulnerability, but previous episodes — the Tanker War of the 1980s, the 2019 attacks on Saudi Aramco facilities, and periodic Iranian rhetorical threats — were absorbed by markets as manageable, temporary risks. The 2026 crisis has overturned that assumption. It has demonstrated, repeatedly and now across three separate escalation cycles, that the credible prospect of renewed conflict, rather than confirmed physical closure, is sufficient to induce commercial paralysis: shipowners, insurers, and traders respond to expected risk, not only to realized disruption. The result is a form of geopolitical risk repricing not seen in energy markets since the oil shocks of the 1970s, and one that in 2026 has already recurred multiple times within a single calendar year.
III. The Kinetic and Maritime Shock
The military escalation transformed the Persian Gulf into a high-risk operational theatre in ways that extended well beyond the initial strikes. During the peak of the closure, commercial shipping through the Strait fell to a small fraction of its pre-war level — as low as single digits to several dozen transits per day against a pre-war average near 110 — while tanker charter rates surged and Brent crude reached an intraday high above US$120 per barrel on 30 April 2026. Prices subsequently eased into the low-to-mid US$70s in late June as the ceasefire and the 17 June memorandum took hold, before rising more than 10 percent in a single week and touching roughly US$88 per barrel by 17 July as hostilities resumed and Iran struck targets across six countries.
The maritime consequences extended well beyond crude tankers. Diversions toward the Cape of Good Hope lengthened voyage durations, absorbed available tanker capacity, and raised transportation costs across petrochemicals, fertilizers, industrial inputs and food commodities. Reporting from maritime intelligence firms including Lloyd's List Intelligence and Windward documented periods in which no large vessel crossed the Strait via the internationally coordinated transit lane while broadcasting its position, and Qatar at one point issued a blanket advisory urging all vessels to suspend maritime activity — the first such economy-wide suspension by a Persian Gulf state since the conflict began. The compounding effect of a near-simultaneous slowdown in Red Sea shipping, driven by a resumption of Houthi attacks after the collapse of the October 2025 ceasefire in that theatre, meant that, for a period, both of the Middle East's principal maritime corridors to Europe and Asia were degraded at once.
For the first time since the 1970s, energy markets have experienced a genuine and repeated geopolitical risk repricing rather than a purely cyclical supply-demand adjustment — and, critically, the repricing has now occurred on at least three separate occasions within a single year, a pattern that is itself feeding into the risk premiums insurers and traders are prepared to accept even during ostensibly quiet periods.
IV. The End of the Efficiency Paradigm
Perhaps the most consequential effect of the crisis is intellectual and doctrinal rather than purely economic. Since the 1990s, globalization prioritized efficiency over resilience: inventory minimization, concentrated production networks, and dependence on maritime chokepoints were treated as economically rational. The 2020-2022 pandemic exposed the fragility of this model; the 2026 Hormuz crisis has converted that exposure into strategic doctrine, reinforced by the fact that the crisis has now recurred multiple times rather than resolving cleanly.
A new paradigm is visibly emerging, built on strategic redundancy, supply-chain diversification, regional production ecosystems, energy stockpiling, and more active state direction of industrial policy. Governments increasingly treat resilience expenditure not as inefficiency but as an insurance premium against a class of shocks that markets had structurally underpriced. The shift from "just-in-time" to "just-in-case" logistics and energy provisioning is likely to remain one of the defining economic themes of the remainder of the decade.
V. The Persian Gulf Cooperation Council: The Collapse of the Safe-Haven Narrative
The GCC economies have experienced the most acute psychological and strategic reversal of the crisis. For roughly two decades Persian Gulf states successfully marketed themselves as islands of stability inside one of the world's most volatile regions, attracting foreign investment, tourism, financial-centre development and expatriate labour on that premise. The events of 2026 have directly challenged that narrative — not through a single dramatic event, but through a sustained pattern of infrastructure attacks that has moved the frontline from tankers in open water to the civilian utilities that keep Persian Gulf societies functioning.
Desalination and integrated power-and-water infrastructure have emerged as a particular point of exposure. The Persian Gulf region supplies an estimated 40 percent of the world's desalinated water from a relatively small number of large coastal plants — a 2010 CIA assessment, since declassified, warned that more than 90 percent of Persian Gulf desalination capacity was concentrated in fewer than sixty plants and that each represented a significant single point of failure. That warning has proved prescient: desalination and associated power facilities in Bahrain, Kuwait and the UAE have all suffered damage during the conflict, most recently on 17 July 2026, when an Iranian strike damaged a power-and-desalination plant in Kuwait, killed an Indian contract worker, and forced the activation of emergency contingency plans. Kuwait derives roughly 90 percent of its municipal water supply from desalination; Qatar and Bahrain are comparably dependent. Analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and other institutions have concluded that GCC conceptions of national security will likely be permanently reshaped by the demonstration that water, not only oil, is now a frontline strategic asset.
The interruption of maritime commerce has exposed several additional structural vulnerabilities: dependence on a small number of export corridors and terminals, heavy reliance on imported food, geographic concentration of energy and desalination infrastructure, and the sensitivity of tourism and foreign investment flows to security perceptions. Even where Persian Gulf states have demonstrated considerable fiscal resilience and rapidly implemented contingency measures — as Kuwaiti authorities did within hours of the 17 July strike — investors have registered that Persian Gulf geopolitical risk had been systematically underpriced for years.
The likely medium-term response includes accelerated investment in food-security strategies, strategic storage capacity for both water and hydrocarbons, overland transport corridors that reduce reliance on maritime chokepoints, and continued industrial and manufacturing diversification under sovereign wealth fund direction. The probable long-term outcome is a more self-sufficient Persian Gulf, but one operating under permanently higher security and insurance costs than the pre-2026 baseline.
VI. Asia and the Forced Acceleration of Energy Diversification
Asia remains the largest consumer of Persian Gulf hydrocarbons, and the crisis has generated acute concerns over industrial continuity across China, India, Japan and South Korea. The unintended consequence has been a simultaneous acceleration of diversification strategies across all four economies, though the mechanisms differ considerably by country.
China
Approximately 40 percent or more of China's total crude imports transit Hormuz under normal conditions, a concentration that no volume of stockpiling can eliminate, only defer. Beijing's response has combined strategic reserve drawdown with demand restraint: rather than bidding aggressively into a tightening spot market, Chinese state buyers drew on pre-accumulated reserves, effectively removing the world's largest marginal source of crude demand from price formation during peak disruption. PetroChina's chairman, Dai Houliang, has stated that the company's Hormuz-transiting imports account for only about 10 percent of its total operations, reflecting years of diversification. According to Chinese industry analysis, domestic price volatility during the crisis ran at roughly one-fifth the volatility of international benchmarks even as Hormuz throughput fell by more than 90 percent at points during the year — a demonstration of the effectiveness, and the limits, of state-directed buffering. China has continued to expand Russian pipeline supply via the Eastern Siberia-Pacific Ocean route and West African crude from Angola and Nigeria, both structurally independent of Hormuz, reinforcing Beijing's long-standing emphasis on strategic self-reliance and "dual circulation."
India
India entered the crisis considerably more exposed than China, with an estimated 50-55 percent of crude and LNG imports transiting Hormuz and strategic reserves covering only roughly nine to ten days of net imports — supplemented by industry storage that brings total national cover to around 74 days, still thin against a prolonged structural disruption. India's response has centred on a sharp increase in discounted Russian crude purchases, which rose again after a temporary dip earlier in the year, placing New Delhi in direct competition with Chinese buyers for Urals-grade barrels and prompting explicit acknowledgement from Russian officials that India's purchases had become an important pillar of bilateral energy cooperation. Indian officials maintain that diversified sourcing — Russian, African, American and Persian Gulf-adjacent non-Hormuz supply — has prevented a domestic shortage, but energy analysts, including S&P Global's India research team, have noted that India, unlike China, Japan and South Korea, never built the scale of strategic storage that would let it comfortably absorb a multi-month disruption, leaving it structurally more exposed than its Asian peers to any renewed closure.
Japan and South Korea
Both economies, which maintain substantially larger strategic reserves than India, have used the crisis to intensify existing policies on LNG source diversification, hydrogen and ammonia co-firing, nuclear restarts, and regional energy partnerships, treating the crisis as validation of pre-existing hedging strategies rather than as a rupture requiring a new approach.
Across all four economies, these transitions are increasingly justified in security rather than climate terms. The energy transition itself is becoming securitized: renewable deployment, nuclear expansion and electrification are now argued for, in Asian capitals as much as in Europe, primarily as instruments of strategic autonomy.
VII. Europe: Deindustrialization, Inflation, and Strategic Reassessment
Europe entered 2026 with reduced direct dependence on Russian pipeline gas but with correspondingly increased exposure to global LNG markets, and with storage levels already below historical norms — approximately 46 billion cubic metres at the end of February 2026, against 60 bcm in 2025 and 77 bcm in 2024. This left the continent acutely exposed to the Hormuz-linked LNG shock, since Qatar alone supplies roughly 15 percent of European LNG imports.
The price response has been sharp and repeated. Dutch TTF futures, Europe's benchmark gas contract, jumped more than 22 percent in a single session on 2 March 2026 as the initial strikes began, and rose further — by more than 35 percent in a single day at one point in the spring — as Qatar briefly halted LNG production at its Ras Laffan and Mesaieed facilities following drone strikes. Prices moderated during the June ceasefire window before climbing again in July, with the front-month TTF contract trading above €50 per megawatt-hour as Qatar issued a blanket maritime-activity suspension amid the renewed hostilities. The International Energy Agency has estimated that Hormuz-linked disruption and lasting damage to Qatari LNG liquefaction infrastructure could reduce cumulative global LNG supply by around 120 billion cubic metres between 2026 and 2030, delaying the anticipated global LNG supply wave and keeping the impact of the crisis in gas markets visible through 2027.
Europe's energy-intensive sectors — chemicals, fertilizers, aluminium and steel — have faced renewed cost pressure at a moment already defined by weak industrial competitiveness. The Bruegel institute has noted that the durability of the price effect depends heavily on the length of the disruption and that Europe, forced to compete with Asian buyers for flexible spot LNG cargoes exactly as it was during the 2021-2023 crisis, is again absorbing a price premium driven substantially by decisions made elsewhere.
The broader consequence is the consolidation of a new European strategic doctrine that treats energy resilience, rather than efficiency, as the organizing principle of policy: expanded domestic industrial subsidy, accelerated nuclear investment, diversified LNG contracting, and larger strategic stockpiles. The crisis has strengthened the argument, already gaining ground since 2022, that full reliance on global energy markets is incompatible with European strategic autonomy — an argument that is likely to accelerate the gradual regionalization of European production networks and the formal integration of economic security into national-security planning.
VIII. The Global South: The Debt and Food Security Multiplier
The most severe humanitarian and financial consequences of the crisis have been concentrated in developing economies, and the transmission channel has proved to be broader and more compounding than in previous oil shocks. The World Bank's April 2026 Commodity Markets Outlook projected developing-economy inflation averaging 5.1 percent in 2026 — a full percentage point above the pre-war baseline — with precious metals prices forecast to rise some 42 percent on safe-haven demand and broader commodity price gains dampening growth across import-dependent economies.
Food security has proved acutely sensitive to the shock because global grain markets are structurally thin: only around a quarter of wheat production, roughly 14 percent of corn, and about 10 percent of rice cross international borders, meaning even modest supply disruptions produce outsized price swings that fall disproportionately on import-dependent developing countries. The Strait of Hormuz carries an estimated 30 percent of globally traded fertilizer, and disrupted shipments compound the direct effect of higher energy costs on fertilizer prices, since low-income households typically spend around half their income on food, so a 10 percent food-price increase carries an effective welfare cost several times larger than the equivalent burden on high-income households. The World Food Programme entered 2026 already needing US$13 billion to reach 110 million vulnerable people, a task made harder by prior donor funding reductions that had already forced staff reductions; the conflict's effect on the Programme's own procurement costs compounds an existing operational crisis. The United Nations has estimated that the cumulative shock from the conflict could push more than 30 million people into poverty worldwide.
The financial transmission channel has proved equally significant. Analysis published through the Center for Global Development and the Institute for Economics and Peace's Global Peace Index has highlighted that higher oil prices combined with currency depreciation generate a negative terms-of-trade shock that raises the cost of servicing external debt at precisely the moment foreign-exchange buffers are most needed. Pakistan, Egypt and Kenya together face an estimated US$5.1 billion in combined sovereign debt maturities in November and December 2026 alone, with rollover terms uncertain under a prolonged-disruption scenario. Sri Lanka, already carrying a debt-to-GDP ratio above 100 percent, could see that ratio approach 143 percent by 2028 under an extended-crisis path — a level widely regarded as incompatible with a workable IMF program absent substantial creditor write-downs. Writing in Project Syndicate, African Union Commission chairperson Moussa Faki Mahamat has argued that what began as a price shock across the Global South has evolved into a debt shock, compounding vulnerabilities built up during the low-interest-rate borrowing of the 2010s.
A distinguishing feature of the 2026 shock, relative to earlier oil shocks, is that it lacks clear winners. Previous disruptions typically generated offsetting gains for exporters even as importers suffered; the 2026 crisis instead transmits simultaneously through energy, food, trade, remittances and financial markets, and several of the states that would normally serve as regional financial stabilizers are themselves among the most exposed. The diplomatic consequence has been a search among developing nations for bilateral energy arrangements, local-currency settlement mechanisms, and new country-led borrowing and debt-negotiation coalitions announced on the margins of the 2026 IMF-World Bank Spring Meetings — developments that, cumulatively, reduce reliance on traditional benchmark pricing and Western-led financial architecture.
IX. The Return of State Interventionism
The crisis has revived the state's role in energy governance across consuming and producing economies alike. Coordinated strategic reserve releases, demand-management measures, and — in the most exposed Asian economies — direct state absorption of import-price volatility all indicate that governments increasingly treat energy as a strategic asset rather than a conventional commodity to be left to market pricing. This marks a significant departure from the liberal-market assumptions that dominated energy policy thinking from the 1980s through the 2010s.
The emerging model combines market mechanisms during periods of relative calm with extensive state intervention during acute episodes — and, given the recurrence of such episodes roughly every two to three months since February 2026, the periods of "calm" are themselves increasingly brief and increasingly priced as transitory. A hybrid system that might be termed strategic capitalism appears to be displacing the assumption of frictionless global energy markets that prevailed before the crisis.
X. The Fragmentation of the Global Energy Order
The long-term consequence of the 2026 crisis is not deglobalization in the aggregate but selective regionalization, accompanied by real, if still partial, investment in transit routes that bypass both the Strait of Hormuz and, in several cases, Russian territory.
The most advanced of these alternatives is the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route, commonly known as the Middle Corridor, which links China and Central Asia to Europe through Kazakhstan, the Caspian Sea, the South Caucasus and Türkiye — the only major Eurasian trade route that bypasses both Russia and Iran. Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Türkiye, China and several European partners approved a 2026 work plan in April to digitalize and expedite transit along the route. The scale of the challenge, however, remains substantial: Kazakhstan still moves roughly 80 percent of its crude exports through the Russian-operated Caspian Pipeline Consortium, and its combined alternative routes — the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline to the Mediterranean, renewed Druzhba pipeline shipments to Germany, and direct pipeline exports to China — together carry only a small fraction of CPC's roughly 60 million tonnes a year. Kazakhstan is nonetheless expanding the Caspian port of Aktau and aims to raise Middle Corridor freight volumes from around 4.5 million tonnes to 20 million tonnes by 2030, notwithstanding the physical constraint of falling Caspian Sea levels, which have dropped roughly two metres over two decades and require ongoing dredging to keep the route navigable.
A related and longer-standing proposal — a Trans-Caspian gas pipeline that would move Turkmen gas westward through existing South Caucasus infrastructure toward Europe — has been discussed for decades with limited progress, but has attracted renewed policy attention from Western institutions, including the Hudson Institute, as a genuine bypass of both Russian and Iranian territory. Meanwhile, US LNG capacity additions are expected to push North American export volumes to record highs in 2026, partially offsetting Qatari losses, though the World Bank has cautioned that this buffer remains thin relative to the scale of Middle Eastern supply at risk.
Several broader structural trends are now visible across the global energy system: energy flows are becoming more diversified and politically segmented; governments and corporations are increasing strategic inventories; the renewable, nuclear and electrification transition is increasingly justified on national-security rather than climate grounds; industrial production is gradually shifting toward geographically proximate and politically reliable partners; and energy markets appear likely to incorporate a structurally higher and more persistent geopolitical risk premium than in the pre-2026 era. The cumulative effect points toward a prolonged period characterized by higher energy costs, lower logistical efficiency, greater built-in redundancy, and substantially greater state involvement in energy allocation than at any point since the 1980s.
XI. Bayesian Scenario Analysis: Four Pathways to 2030
Scenario 1: Normalization of Persian Gulf Energy Flows
Scenario 2: Prolonged Regional Fragmentation
3: Emergence of Alternative Eurasian Energy Corridors
Scenario 4: Acceleration of Energy Regionalism by 2030
Summary of Probability Assessments
XII. Conclusion: A New Security Calculus
Selected Sources
Al Jazeera, "Strait of Hormuz shipping grinds to a halt as US, Iran resume fighting," 10 July 2026.Al Jazeera, "Iranian attack damages Kuwait power and desalination plant, kills worker," 30 March 2026.Associated Press, "Iranian strike damages a Kuwait desalination plant, exposing water vulnerability in dry Mideast," 17 July 2026.Barchart, "Escalation of US-Iran Hostilities Pushes Crude Oil Sharply Higher," 17 July 2026.Bloomberg, "US, Iran Escalate Attacks, Undermining Ceasefire and Pressuring Oil Prices," 17 July 2026.Bruegel, "How will the Iran conflict hit European energy markets?"Caspian Policy Center, "Middle Corridor" research portal and "How to Maximize the Middle Corridor," June 2026.Center for Global Development, "Will the Iran War Be the Breaking Point for Vulnerable Countries?," 5 April 2026.Center for Strategic and International Studies, "Could Iran Disrupt the Gulf Countries' Desalinated Water Supplies?," 7 May 2026.Christian Science Monitor, "Ceasefire gone, the question rises: Will Iran war ever end?," 17 July 2026.CNBC, "How the Iran war has stoked competition between India and China for Russian oil," 23 April 2026.CNBC, "Middle East war sends natural gas prices soaring, raising growth shock risk for Europe and Asia," 3 March 2026.CNN, "Tracking traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, in maps and charts," updated 16 July 2026.Enterprise, "Kazakhstan joins the race to build energy resilience," 1 July 2026.Euronews, "Why investment in Caspian transit routes is crucial for energy security," 24 April 2026.Fanack Water, "Kuwait's Desalination Attack Shows the Gulf's Civilian Infrastructure Is Now a Front Line."Gulf News, "Hormuz test: India's shift from vulnerability to strategy."Hudson Institute, "Now Is the Time to Build Trans-Caspian Pipelines," 25 April 2026.IEA, "The Middle East and Global Energy Markets" topic page, 11 June 2026.International Monetary Fund / World Bank Spring Meetings coverage via UN News, "Strength in numbers: Developing countries band together as Iran war batters global economy," 15 April 2026.Jamestown Foundation, "Middle Corridor Makes Progress Toward Operational Reality," 28 April 2026.MEPEI, "Analysis of the Impact of the Strait of Hormuz Blockade on China's Energy Market," 22 April 2026.Open, "Strait of Hormuz Crisis: How India Kept Fuel Supplies Stable with Diversified Crude Imports and Russian Oil Buys," 7 May 2026.Oilprice.com, "European Natural Gas Prices Jump on Hormuz Escalation."Project Syndicate, Moussa Faki Mahamat, "The Iran War Is Fueling a Global Debt Shock," June 2026.Purdue Center for Commercial Agriculture, "The Iran Conflict and Global Food Security," 31 March 2026.Reuters (via AOL), "War in Iran threatens fresh food-price shock across developing world," 20 March 2026.S&P Global Commodity Insights, "India assures uninterrupted oil product supply; crude diversification offers cushion," 3 March 2026, and "India weighs alternate crudes...," 5 March 2026.Trading Economics, Brent crude oil market commentary, 17 July 2026.UN News, "US-Iran war leaves shipping at near-standstill in Hormuz again," 6-9 July 2026.Vision of Humanity / Institute for Economics and Peace, "The Hidden Price of the Iran War," 11 June 2026.World Bank, "Commodity Markets Outlook," April 2026, and "Strait of Hormuz disruption sends natural gas prices surging," 9 June 2026.
No comments:
Post a Comment