Analysts Warn Iran Conflict Will Drive Prolonged Rise in Energy and Food Prices

On April 7, 2026, a two-week ceasefire between the United States and Iran sent oil prices tumbling 17% in a single session — the sharpest single-day drop since the pandemic [1]. Brent crude fell below $100 for the first time since mid-March. Stock markets surged. The collective exhale was audible across trading floors from London to Singapore.

But the relief may be premature. Five weeks of conflict have inflicted structural damage on energy infrastructure, shattered shipping patterns through the world's most important oil chokepoint, and set off a chain reaction through fertiliser markets and food supply chains that a temporary ceasefire cannot reverse. The economic scars of this war — the third major Gulf conflict in three decades — are already being priced into long-term contracts, planting decisions, and sovereign debt trajectories across the developing world.

The Price Shock: From $67 to $126

Before the first U.S. airstrikes on February 28, Brent crude sat at roughly $67 per barrel [2]. Within days of Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz on March 4, it had blown past $100. By late March, it peaked at $126 — an 88% increase in under a month, representing what the International Energy Agency called "the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market" [3].

Source: EIA, Reuters

Data as of Apr 8, 2026CSV

The scale of the disruption is staggering. Roughly 20 million barrels of crude and petroleum products transit the Strait of Hormuz each day, equivalent to about 20% of global oil consumption [4]. At the peak of the crisis, flows through the strait collapsed to less than 10% of pre-conflict levels, with Gulf production cuts exceeding 10 million barrels per day [3].

Liquefied natural gas prices rose even more sharply — up nearly 60% since the start of hostilities — reflecting the concentration of global LNG capacity in Qatar, whose Ras Laffan industrial complex accounts for approximately 20% of global LNG production [5]. QatarEnergy declared force majeure on all exports after the strait's closure [2].

March 2026 recorded the steepest monthly oil price rise in history: 50% [1].

How Does This Compare to Previous Shocks?

The magnitude invites comparison to previous oil crises. During the 1973 Arab oil embargo, prices roughly quadrupled over six months. The 1990 Gulf War produced a shorter, sharper spike — oil rose 89% but returned to pre-war levels within nine months [6]. The 2003 Iraq invasion caused a more modest and gradual increase, as Iraqi production was smaller and OPEC spare capacity larger.

The closest analogue may be the 2022 Russia-Ukraine energy crisis, which sent European natural gas prices to record highs and triggered a continent-wide cost-of-living emergency. But the 2026 disruption affects a higher share of global oil flows. The IEA assessment that it exceeds all prior disruptions in scale reflects the unique geography of the Strait of Hormuz: there is no pipeline bypass for the volumes that transit through it [3].

Shipping in Chaos: The Cost of Going the Long Way Around

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, compounded by the resumption of Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping announced on February 28, has forced a wholesale rerouting of global maritime trade [7]. Tankers and cargo vessels that would normally transit the Suez Canal are diverting around Africa's Cape of Good Hope, adding 3,500 to 4,000 nautical miles and 10 to 14 days to Asia-Europe voyages [7].

The cost is substantial. Rerouting a single Aframax tanker — a mid-sized vessel carrying roughly 750,000 barrels — from Asia to Northwest Europe via the Cape of Good Hope adds an estimated $933,000 in fuel costs per voyage [7]. Spread across the cargo, that translates to roughly $1.25 per barrel in additional shipping costs alone, before accounting for the opportunity cost of longer voyage times tying up vessel capacity.

Shipping analysts at Kpler noted in mid-March that tanker chartering behaviour had fundamentally shifted, with charterers scrambling to secure vessels for longer routes and spot rates for Very Large Crude Carriers rising more than 200% from pre-conflict levels [8].

The dual closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the effective shutdown of the Red Sea corridor means that the two most important maritime energy chokepoints in the world are simultaneously compromised — a scenario that no pre-war contingency model had assigned significant probability [7].

From Barrel to Bushel: The Farm Cost Cascade

The energy price shock has transmitted rapidly into agriculture through three primary channels: diesel fuel for farm machinery, natural gas as the feedstock for nitrogen fertiliser, and fuel for grain drying and transport [9].

Source: USDA, AAA, CNBC

Data as of Apr 1, 2026CSV

Diesel prices have risen 43.5% since the conflict began, according to AAA [10]. For an Alabama row-crop farmer, that translates to an additional $14 per acre in equipment operating costs — roughly $30,000 in added expense across a typical operation [10]. Nitrogen-based fertiliser, which depends heavily on natural gas as both feedstock and process fuel, has increased approximately 30% [9]. Suppliers in some regions are declining to quote fixed prices, leaving farmers unable to lock in input costs for the spring planting season [11].

About one-third of the world's fertiliser ingredients transit through the Strait of Hormuz, making the waterway as critical to food production as it is to energy markets [9].

The USDA's March Prospective Planting report projected that corn and wheat acreage — both nitrogen-fertiliser-intensive crops — would fall 3% each relative to 2025, as farmers shift toward less input-intensive crops or reduce planted area altogether [12]. The same report revised its food price forecast upward, projecting consumer food prices could rise as much as 6.1% in 2026, a significant increase from earlier estimates [10].

Source: BLS / Bureau of Labor Statistics

Data as of Feb 1, 2026CSV

The BLS Consumer Price Index for food was already running 3.1% above year-ago levels as of February 2026, before the full impact of the conflict had worked through supply chains [13]. Cornell economist Chris Barrett noted that labour costs — roughly 50% of grocery prices — were already the single biggest contributor to food price inflation before the war, and that immigration enforcement reducing the agricultural workforce compounds the problem independently of the conflict [14].

The critical lag to understand: most crops grow once annually. Higher fertiliser costs incurred this spring will affect consumer prices until the next growing season. Even if the conflict ended tomorrow, farmers who have already purchased inputs at elevated prices will pass those costs through [14].

Who Pays the Most: Food Insecurity and the Distributional Toll

The burden of higher food and energy prices falls disproportionately on the poorest households and the most import-dependent nations.

The World Food Programme projects that if the conflict persists through mid-2026 with oil prices remaining above $100 per barrel, an additional 45 million people could fall into acute food insecurity — defined as being unable to afford an adequate daily diet of 2,100 kilocalories [15]. This would push the global total from an already record-setting 318 million to approximately 363 million, a figure comparable to the peak of the 2022 Ukraine crisis [15].

Source: World Food Programme

Data as of Mar 28, 2026CSV

The regional distribution is uneven. East and Southern Africa face the largest absolute increase — 17.7 million additional people at risk — while Asia faces the steepest percentage rise at 24% [15]. West and Central Africa could see a 21% increase, with the Middle East and North Africa region adding 5.2 million [15].

Country-level vulnerability tracks closely with import dependence. Sudan, which imports approximately 80% of its wheat, has already seen commodity prices jump at least 20% since the conflict began [15]. Egypt, the world's largest wheat importer, faces a widening fiscal gap as it subsidises bread for over 70 million citizens while paying elevated import costs. Lebanon, already in the midst of an economic crisis, and Bangladesh, a major garment exporter dependent on imported fuel, represent what analysts at ODI describe as "second-order exposures" — countries hit not by direct conflict involvement but by the energy price transmission mechanism [16].

By income quintile within affected countries, the impact is regressive. Lower-income households spend a larger share of disposable income on food and energy — often exceeding 50% in developing nations — meaning that identical percentage price increases consume a proportionally larger share of their budgets [16].

The Bear Case: Are Analysts Overstating the Shock?

Not everyone agrees the price shock will be as severe or prolonged as the headline numbers suggest. Several structural factors constrain how high and how long prices can rise.

U.S. shale output averaged a record 13.6 million barrels per day in 2025, up roughly 400,000 barrels per day year-over-year [17]. While momentum has slowed — output is expected to have peaked near 13.8 million barrels per day in late 2025 before easing toward 13.6 million by end-2026 — the U.S. remains the world's largest producer and a significant swing supplier.

Strategic petroleum reserves across IEA member states represent a substantial buffer. On March 11, the IEA announced a coordinated release of up to 400 million barrels — the largest in the organisation's 52-year history [18]. The U.S. alone committed 172 million barrels from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve [18]. This is the sixth time IEA members have taken collective emergency action, following precedents in 1991, 2005, 2011, and twice in 2022 [4].

Chinese demand presents a more ambiguous picture. China was the world's largest incremental oil consumer for years, but electric vehicle adoption is reducing gasoline demand while the property sector slump has cut diesel consumption [17]. China's strategic stockbuilding — reaching historically high levels of 1.2 billion barrels in 2025, driven by 32 million barrels of new storage capacity — means Beijing has a cushion against supply disruptions and less urgency to bid up spot cargoes [17].

The EIA's pre-conflict forecast had projected Brent would average just $58 per barrel in 2026, reflecting expectations of persistent oversupply [17]. Even with the conflict, some analysts argue that the combination of record reserves, plateauing Chinese demand, and the threat of demand destruction at prices above $100 structurally caps the upside.

Al Jazeera's analysis cautioned, however, that strategic reserves "may calm markets but cannot fix Hormuz disruption" — the reserves buy time, but they cannot replace the ongoing daily flows that have been cut off [19].

Government Responses: Subsidies, Caps, and the Fiscal Cost

Governments across Asia and beyond have scrambled to shield consumers from the price shock.

Japan instructed national oil reserve storage facilities to prepare for potential releases, signalling contingency planning for prolonged disruption [20]. South Korea's President Lee Jae Myung announced domestic fuel price caps for the first time in nearly three decades [20]. Indonesia expanded government subsidies to keep domestic fuel prices and electricity tariffs affordable [20].

The IEA's coordinated 400-million-barrel release, announced March 11, represented the most significant multilateral intervention [18]. Stocks from Asia-Oceania IEA members were made available immediately, with American and European stocks following by late March [4].

The fiscal cost of these interventions is substantial. Indonesia's subsidy expansion alone adds billions to an already stretched budget. Across IEA member states, the drawdown of strategic reserves represents a depletion of emergency capacity that will need to be rebuilt — the U.S. had only recently begun refilling its SPR after the 2022 drawdowns [17].

Economic research on past subsidy interventions presents a mixed record. While price caps and subsidies provide immediate household relief, they can blunt the price signal that incentivises conservation and alternative sourcing, prolonging dependence on the disrupted supply. The IMF has repeatedly found that energy subsidies in developing nations disproportionately benefit wealthier households — who consume more fuel — while draining fiscal resources that could fund targeted transfers to the poor [16].

Why Ceasefires Don't Reset Prices

The April 7 ceasefire prompted an immediate 17% drop in crude prices [1]. But oil at $91 per barrel remains 36% above its pre-war level of $67. Historical precedent and market mechanics explain why.

Infrastructure damage takes years to repair. Rystad Energy estimates that rebuilding energy infrastructure in the region could cost more than $25 billion and take up to five years [5]. Qatar's Ras Laffan complex — the single largest LNG facility on Earth — has suffered damage reducing export capacity by 17% [5]. Restarting shuttered fields and shut-in production facilities requires weeks to months even after security conditions improve.

Long-term contracts lock in elevated prices. Airlines, utilities, and industrial consumers that hedged or signed supply contracts during the crisis at $100+ per barrel will pay those prices regardless of spot market movements. Farmers who purchased fertiliser at 30% markups have already absorbed those costs into their production budgets.

Strategic restocking creates sustained demand. BCA Research notes that governments hoard and restock in anticipation of renewed conflict, keeping structural demand elevated even as the immediate crisis abates [5]. After the 2022 Ukraine shock, European gas storage refilling campaigns kept prices elevated for over a year after the initial spike.

Historical analogues are instructive but imperfect. The 1990 Gulf War oil spike lasted nine months; the 2022 Russia-Ukraine energy crisis produced elevated European gas prices for roughly 18 months [6]. The difference in this case is the combination of physical infrastructure damage, dual chokepoint disruption (Hormuz and Red Sea), and the fragility of the ceasefire itself — which is only two weeks long, with what CNBC described as "a significant trust deficit on both sides" [1].

Source: BLS / Bureau of Labor Statistics

Data as of Feb 1, 2026CSV

Second-Order Financial Risks

Beyond the direct energy and food price impacts, analysts are tracking several financial system risks that could amplify the economic damage.

Emerging market sovereign debt. Energy-importing developing nations face a triple squeeze: higher import bills widening current account deficits, currency depreciation against the dollar as investors seek safety, and rising borrowing costs as sovereign spreads widen [16]. Egypt and Turkey represent acute exposures — both are large energy importers with limited fiscal buffers and significant dollar-denominated debt [16].

Central bank policy dilemmas. Central banks entered 2026 expecting to continue normalising policy as inflation eased. The oil shock has forced a reassessment. Morgan Stanley estimates that for every sustained 10% increase in oil prices, global headline inflation rises by 40 basis points and global output falls 0.1–0.2% [21]. Central banks must now choose between raising rates to fight resurgent inflation — risking recession — or holding rates to support growth — risking de-anchored inflation expectations. Bond markets face what CNBC described as a "perfect storm" as this dilemma plays out [22].

Foreign central bank reserve drawdowns. Higher energy prices have cascaded into central banks' balance sheets, with foreign central banks' holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds at the Federal Reserve dropping sharply as institutions liquidated reserves to raise dollar liquidity for energy purchases [16].

Commodity derivatives exposure. If prices spike beyond model assumptions built into commodity-linked derivatives — a scenario that became plausible when Brent hit $126 — the resulting margin calls and counterparty exposures could stress financial institutions with concentrated positions, echoing the nickel market disruption of 2022 [21].

What Comes Next

The two-week ceasefire is, at best, a pause. Iran has agreed to permit safe transit through the Strait of Hormuz during the ceasefire period, but analysts at CNBC note that "large-scale oil shipping won't start again quickly" even under optimistic scenarios [1]. Insurance rates for Gulf-transit vessels remain elevated. Crew availability for Hormuz passages is constrained. And the underlying political conditions that produced the conflict remain unresolved.

BloombergNEF projects that Brent could reach $91 per barrel by late 2026 even in a favourable scenario [23]. The EIA has revised its full-year average Brent forecast to $96, up from a pre-war projection of $58 [24]. For consumers and farmers, the practical implication is that elevated costs are likely to persist through the end of 2026 and into 2027, regardless of whether a permanent ceasefire is reached.

The 45 million people the World Food Programme warns could be pushed into acute hunger are not a forecast of what will happen if the war continues indefinitely — they are a projection based on oil prices merely remaining above $100 for the next few months [15]. With Brent at $91 even after the ceasefire rally, that threshold remains uncomfortably close.

The third Gulf war has already left its mark on energy markets. The question now is how deep and how lasting the scars will be.