Twenty days into the escalating confrontation involving Iran, the United States and Israel, it has become increasingly clear that this is not merely a conventional military conflict. Beyond the battlefield, a parallel struggle is unfolding in global energy markets, where oil and gas are no longer just economic commodities, but strategic instruments of power, pressure and deterrence.In this evolving landscape, energy diplomacy has moved from negotiation tables into operational reality. Decisions surrounding production, transit routes and infrastructure security are now directly shaping the trajectory of the conflict and its wider geopolitical implications.

The Strait of Hormuz: A strategic lever in a time of crisis

Recent developments have once again underscored the centrality of the Strait of Hormuz—one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints. Iran’s geographical position has enabled it to frame the Strait as a potential lever of influence within the broader confrontation.

Even without a full closure, heightened security risks, rerouting of tankers and rising insurance costs have demonstrated that the perception of disruption can be as impactful as disruption itself.

Even without a full closure, heightened security risks, rerouting of tankers and rising insurance costs have demonstrated that the perception of disruption can be as impactful as disruption itself.

This reflects a core principle of energy diplomacy in times of conflict: the strategic use of latent capabilities to influence the calculations of adversaries and global markets alike.

READ: Qatar says Iranian missile strikes cut LNG export capacity by 17%

Energy infrastructure in the line of fire

One of the most notable features of the current conflict is the growing focus on energy infrastructure. Reports and regional analyses suggest that oil facilities across several countries—including Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Oman—have faced threats or, in some cases, attacks.

From the perspective of some analysts, these developments are linked to the presence of US military forces in parts of the region, effectively placing energy infrastructure within the broader “geography of conflict”. In this context, targeting such facilities is interpreted not merely as a tactical move, but as part of a wider effort to raise geopolitical costs and signal deterrence. Under conditions of escalating conflict, such dynamics are viewed by some observers as a near-inevitable extension of modern warfare, where economic and infrastructural nodes become integral to strategic calculations.

Strategic restraint by Arab states: A pillar of regional stability

Amid these tensions, a defining feature of the current crisis has been the measured and restrained response of Arab states. Countries such as Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia—despite facing direct and indirect pressures—have largely avoided escalation or direct military entanglement.

This posture reflects not only an acute awareness of the risks associated with a broader regional war, but also a maturing diplomatic approach prioritizing stability.

Efforts to maintain energy flows, prevent large-scale market disruption and engage through diplomatic channels highlight a form of strategic patience that has arguably helped contain the crisis.

Efforts to maintain energy flows, prevent large-scale market disruption and engage through diplomatic channels highlight a form of strategic patience that has arguably helped contain the crisis.

In many respects, this restraint has emerged as one of the few stabilizing factors in an otherwise volatile regional environment, limiting the risk of a systemic global energy shock.

READ: Trump: Israel attacked Iran’s south pars gas field without US or Qatari involvement

Iran’s energy diplomacy: From survival to deterrence

Within this context, Iran’s energy diplomacy appears to be undergoing a strategic shift. While previous years were defined by efforts to sustain exports under sanctions, the current phase reflects a broader use of energy as a tool of deterrence and geopolitical signaling.

By leveraging its geographic position, energy capabilities and asymmetric tools, Iran is engaging not only on the military front, but also within the “energy domain”—a space where consequences extend far beyond immediate conflict zones and into the global economy.

Global implications: Fragility of the energy order

The past twenty days have exposed the inherent fragility of the global energy system when confronted with geopolitical shocks. Price volatility, supply concerns and heightened uncertainty all point to the continued centrality of energy in shaping global economic stability.

The past twenty days have exposed the inherent fragility of the global energy system when confronted with geopolitical shocks. Price volatility, supply concerns and heightened uncertainty all point to the continued centrality of energy in shaping global economic stability.

At the same time, major international actors are likely to reassess their strategies—whether through diversification of supply sources, investment in alternative routes, or acceleration of energy transition policies.

Conclusion: A war flowing through pipelines

What has unfolded over the past three weeks illustrates a defining feature of contemporary conflict: wars are no longer fought solely on physical battlefields, but also through infrastructure, markets and strategic resources. Energy, as a “silent weapon”, is playing a decisive role in shaping both the conduct and consequences of this confrontation. The use of chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz, the vulnerability of infrastructure, and the restraint shown by regional actors together form a complex equation—one whose outcome will resonate far beyond the Middle East. In this war, pipelines, shipping lanes and energy corridors are not peripheral—they are central to the conflict itself.

OPINION: IMEC vs INSTC: The emerging battle over Middle Eastern energy corridors

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor