With the Middle East conflict dragging on, the kick start to renewables makes more sense than ever

The global shift from fossil fuels to clean energy is usually framed as a slow, incremental process but the conflict in the Middle East is kick starting a transformational move to home-grown renewable energy and battery storage, with independent experts saying there is no going back.

The war in Iran is redrawing the contours of the global energy system, confronting governments with a stark and immediate question: do you double down on fossil fuels or accelerate the shift to cheaper, self-generated and cleaner alternatives? At a gathering of financial leaders in Washington in April, policymakers and analysts agreed on little beyond the scale of the disruption, as energy security concerns rippled across markets and capitals.

The conflict, triggered by U.S. and Israeli strikes and compounded by disruptions to Middle Eastern oil flows, has upended long-held assumptions about stability in global energy supply and the steady shift to renewables. Iran’s interference with the Strait of Hormuz — a narrow corridor through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil passes — has forced governments to confront the fragility of a system that depends heavily on a handful of chokepoints.

With oil and gas supplies constrained and prices climbing, nations are scrambling to respond. Some are seeking new fossil fuel sources, reopening coal plants or boosting domestic oil production. Many are turning more urgently to renewables, viewing wind, solar and batteries as a hedge against geopolitical shocks that can send fuel prices surging overnight.

Though the war is creating incentives to boost fossil fuels, doing so would be short-sighted, expert Kingsmill Bond, a strategist for the energy thinktank Ember, told media. “This is the first oil shock in history where oil faces a superior alternative. Solar, wind and EV are cheaper, local, faster to deploy and huge,” he said. “They were winning even before the crisis, and this just galvanizes change.”

The divergence reflects a deeper debate about the direction of the global energy transition. Officials in the United States have emphasised expanding oil and gas output, arguing that immediate supply shortages demand pragmatic solutions. In contrast, many import-dependent countries — particularly in Europe and Asia — see the crisis as a catalyst to reduce reliance on volatile fuel markets and accelerate electrification.

Economically, the consequences are already becoming visible. The International Monetary Fund has warned of slower global growth and rising inflation as energy costs climb, with poorer, fuel-importing nations bearing the heaviest burden. Even in a shorter conflict, the aftershocks are expected to linger, reshaping investment patterns and government policy for years to come.

For energy analysts, the broader conclusion is unmistakable. Crises of this magnitude rarely leave systems unchanged; instead, they act as inflection points. Whether the world emerges more dependent on fossil fuels or more rapidly transitions to clean energy remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the pre-war status quo — of relatively stable, globalised energy flows — is unlikely to return.