Dr. Hamad Kasasbeh

Energy prices no longer reflect supply and demand alone; they have become a direct mirror of geopolitical tensions and their impact on the global economy. Amid the current escalation between Iran on one side, and Israel and the United States on the other, energy markets have returned to the forefront, with noticeable price increases driven by concerns over supply stability, transportation routes, and growing uncertainty in global markets.

These increases are linked to field developments and political decisions affecting energy flows. However, their impact does not remain confined to the parties involved in the conflict. Instead, it gradually spreads across the global economy, ultimately reaching consumers—especially in countries that do not produce energy and bear the direct cost of imports.

In this sense, the shock shifts from a political event into a broadly distributed economic burden. Import-dependent countries face higher import costs, companies absorb increased production and operating expenses, and consumers experience inflation and declining purchasing power, reflected in the rising cost of living.

Economic estimates suggest that these disruptions impose a significant burden on the global economy. Every meaningful increase in oil prices directly affects growth and inflation rates. In this context, the total cost may reach hundreds of billions of dollars annually, driven by higher production and transportation costs, as well as slower economic activity in energy-importing countries.

At the same time, energy prices no longer reflect current conditions alone; they increasingly include what can be described as a “geopolitical risk premium,” where markets react to expectations even before events occur. Moreover, the cost of these shocks is unevenly distributed, with economies less capable of adapting bearing a larger share, widening the gap between them and energy-producing countries.

The impact goes beyond rising prices. It also includes delayed investments and reduced economic activity in an environment shaped by uncertainty, as companies tend to postpone decisions, affecting growth and expansion opportunities across many economies.

In this context, a broader institutional question emerges: can the party contributing to disruptions in energy markets be considered responsible for their economic consequences? And does this require a more active role from the United Nations Security Council in addressing these effects, beyond their traditional security and military dimensions?

The answer is not straightforward. Energy markets are shaped by a complex interaction between economic and political forces, and decisions influencing them involve multiple actors, making it difficult to assign clear responsibility.

At the same time, international law does not provide a clear framework for addressing the indirect economic consequences of conflicts. There is no binding mechanism to hold any party accountable for global economic damage resulting from supply disruptions or price increases.

In light of this gap, there is a growing need for new tools to address these challenges. One possible approach is the creation of an international mechanism to compensate countries most affected by rising energy prices, alongside strengthening economic resilience through diversification of energy sources and improved efficiency.

Ultimately, in an increasingly interconnected global economy, the cost of conflict does not remain within its borders. It quietly spreads to economies that were not part of it, forcing them to bear the consequences of disruptions they did not create—raising once again the question of economic fairness on a global scale.