What this current war has revealed about our over reliance on fossil fuels and what to do about it

No matter what else happens in the current Iran War, there is one lesson the world should finally and fully learn: Oil is indefensible.

For over a century, fossil fuels have powered our global economy. They’ve contributed to industrialization, economic growth, the modernization of our food systems. They’ve provided previously unimaginable benefits to humanity. Without fossil-derived energy, we would have never developed the technologies we now use to heal and help, couldn’t have developed our economies to the point where famine is a distant memory for most. They’ve also polluted our commons, led to the destruction of vast habitats, and, if you believe science, contributed towards the gradual heating of the world (whether or not they outweigh their costs is for another time).

And now they’ve become literally indefensible: despite fossil fuels’ benefits, the war has proven that any actor set on causing global chaos need only deploy a few hundred inexpensive drones packed with explosives to cause havoc and gain geopolitical leverage. Because it isn’t just the Iranian closure of the Straits of Hormuz that has people rattled, but rather the Iranian threat to double down on its campaign to ruin Gulf fossil fuel infrastructure that’s had America pause the war. Instead of focusing on the later – on the insecurity associated with remaining addicted to fossil fuels – the media has been flooded with statements whose purpose is to keep us tied to the stuff, at a time when alternatives are more accessible than ever.

It’s worth drilling down into that point for a moment: according to the IEA, only 11 million barrels per day (mbpd) are being obstructed by the current Iranian blockade. While it is factually true that this is a greater number of barrels withheld in absolute terms than in the 1970s embargoes, in relative terms the closure of Hormuz pales in comparison: in 1973, for example, the world only produced at most 40mbpd; by the end of 2025 the world produced over 80mbpd with much of the new capacity coming from outside the Gulf. Those 11mbpd are certainly precious, but much less of a showstopper than they were 50 years ago.

Moreover, the US itself produces all the fossil fuels it needs, Europe is mainly taken care of by its own production and that of the Caucuses and Africa, and Israel does not rely on oil from the Gulf. India has generally relied on Russia – even under the sanctions regime – or oil that can come through the Red Sea. Those Asian countries who do rely on Persian Gulf mediated fossil fuels could be compensated for up to six months with the 1.2 billion barrels currently held in reserve in public emergency stocks (with more, allegedly, held by individual nations, and 600 million held by industry). And that doesn’t take into account the spare capacity in Saudi Arabia, or capacity being brought online in Venezuela.

In other words, America could decide to blockade Hormuz to pressure Iran and would have half a year before global oil stocks are depleted. Given how reliant the Islamic Republic is on oil money, that might be the most strategic card in Donald Trump’s hand. All it would take is patience and temporary price controls.

Then why are all the talking heads using Hormuz (and “the markets!”) to make the case for why America needs to soften its demands on Iran? Because most if not many of them are beneficiaries of the profits made by fossil fuel manufacturers (and derivative industries) and want to draw attention away from what has really happened during this war: the breaking of the taboo against attacking highly flammable fossil fuel production, processing, and storage facilities by Iran.

It is important to remember Iran has been testing this strategy for years. In September 2019, under the watchful eye of the first Trump administration, Iran carried out its first major drone attack on Saudi Aramco’s Abqaiq-Khurais field and facilities, temporarily knocking out about half of Saudi Arabia’s oil production. Trump did nothing to help a shocked Saudi Arabia then, and Iran perfected this strategy since. Hence, the grand majority of Iranian strikes during the war are on the Gulf, with the fair share targeting fossil infrastructure.

It is much easier to ignore the increasing indefensibility of fossil fuels and project a “keep calm and carry on relying on fossils to fuel your economies” attitude if one blames the current impasse on Iranian threats to block Hormuz. As the oily talking heads have it, the threat to a fossil-powered future is manageable; all it takes is for America (and Israel) to stop their attacks on Iran and everyone can go back to burning black gold and minting profit.

We can’t allow ourselves to fall for this siren’s song. Even if fossil fuels weren’t warming our planet past the boiling point, the exponential growth of drone technology availability virtually guarantees that no fossil facility is safe from either state or non-state actors seeking to bend the world to their whim. If Ukraine can produce, today, drones capable of attacking military facilities for less than $400 a unit, you can rest assured an ideologue with access to an industrial CNC machine or 3D printer will plan and execute crippling attacks on fossil facilities in the next decade.

But there is hope. As Azeem Azhar and Hannah Petrovic write, “For decades, almost everyone with a forecasting model got solar wrong.” Our ability to capture energy from the sun now rivals, on a cost basis, our ability to extract energy from fossils. Prices for solar are only going one way: down. That’s why, as Arod Bassila points out, those of us who already have solar panels on their homes – like the good people of Pakistan – care less about this current shock than we would have in the past. Combine that with breakthroughs in energy storage, like the one just the other week at Tel Aviv University, and we are on the cusp of a new age, one in which the Straits of Hormuz are at best a geographical novelty, and Islamists and other ideologues can no longer threaten the lifeblood of our economies.

And that is why we, the citizens, cannot allow our leaders to return to business as usual after this war. We must demand that a sizable fraction of the subsidies that currently go to the fossil fuel industry (estimated at trillions of USD) go towards freeing us from fossil fuels. Not because of what science says about our warming planet, not because we want to save the whales or corals or polar bears, but because fossil fuels are simply indefensible.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)