As tensions in the Middle East escalate, global attention inevitably focuses on oil and gas supply. The concern is understandable: roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most critical chokepoints in the global energy system. Any disruption to this route can quickly send shockwaves through global energy markets.

Yet the most serious risks may not stop at energy. In an interconnected global economy, shocks in energy markets often spill over into other sectors — including the global food system. If geopolitical tensions evolve into a prolonged regional conflict, the consequences may extend far beyond oil and gas prices and begin to affect global food security, which has already become increasingly fragile in recent years.

The link between energy and food is often overlooked. Modern food production depends heavily on energy, particularly through fertilizer production. Natural gas is the main feedstock used to produce nitrogen-based fertilizers such as ammonia and urea. In the fertilizer industry, gas is not only a source of energy but also a critical chemical input.

Globally, around 70% to 80% of the production cost of nitrogen fertilizers is derived from natural gas. This means that spikes in gas prices almost inevitably translate into higher fertilizer prices. In other words, an energy shock today can easily become a food shock several months later. This relationship illustrates what many analysts describe as the energy–food nexus — the structural link between the stability of energy markets and global food security.

The world currently produces more than 180 million tons of nitrogen fertilizer each year, a cornerstone of modern agricultural productivity. Without nitrogen fertilizer, yields of key staple crops such as wheat, maize, and rice would decline significantly. Any disruption to fertilizer production therefore has the potential to affect global food output on a large scale.

Sharp increases in gas prices often force fertilizer producers to cut production or temporarily shut down facilities. When fertilizer prices surge, farmers in many countries will respond by reducing fertilizer use to control costs. The consequences are rarely immediate, but they appear in the following harvest season in the form of lower agricultural yields.

The implications for global food markets can be significant. Global wheat trade alone exceeds 200 million tons annually and serves as a primary food source for many importing countries across the Middle East, North Africa, and Asia. Meanwhile, only around 50 million tons of rice are traded internationally each year — a relatively small volume compared with global production. This market structure makes global rice prices particularly sensitive to supply disruptions. When several major producers impose export restrictions, international prices can spike rapidly.

These risks are compounded by climate volatility in recent years. Increasingly extreme weather patterns — partly driven by the El Niño–Southern Oscillation — have produced droughts in parts of Asia, floods in key agricultural regions, and heat waves in major food-producing areas. When climate pressures coincide with rising input costs, the global food system becomes even more vulnerable to shocks.

In such circumstances, policy responses from food-exporting countries can inadvertently worsen the situation. As food prices begin to rise, governments often impose export restrictions on strategic commodities such as wheat, rice, or maize in an effort to stabilize domestic markets. A clear precedent occurred during the 2008 global food crisis. While intended to protect domestic consumers, such measures can collectively trigger panic in international markets and accelerate global price increases. If similar policies emerge under today’s energy shock conditions, the world could witness the largest food price surge since the 1970s.

History shows that food price spikes often carry serious economic and social consequences. A well-known example is the Arab Spring, which was partly fueled by rising food prices. Countries heavily dependent on food imports are particularly vulnerable to such pressures. These include Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon in the Middle East; Bangladesh and Pakistan in South Asia; as well as Ethiopia, Somalia, and Sudan in Africa. In such situations, supply and demand dynamics quickly translate into price increases. As food prices rise, the consequences extend beyond inflation and can trigger social and political instability.

For this reason, escalating tensions in the Middle East should not be viewed solely as a threat to global energy security. The world must also pay closer attention to the broader implications for global food security. If the conflict becomes prolonged, the international community will face the challenge not only of stabilizing energy markets but also of ensuring that the global food system continues to function effectively.

Without adequate attention to this dimension, the world risks drifting toward a global food crisis that unfolds gradually — but with economic and social consequences far greater than a simple surge in energy prices.

---
Iman Pambagyo is the Trade Ministry’s Director General of International Trade Negotiations (2012-2014, 2016-2020) and Indonesia’s Ambassador to the WTO (2014-2015).

The views expressed in this article are those of the author.

Add as a preferred source on Google +