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?

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.

Written by Dhesigen Naidoo, Research Associate, Climate Risk and Human Security Project, ISS Pretoria