The conflict in Iran has grown from a localised military confrontation into a serious threat to global energy security, and a new GlobalData survey of readers shows opinion is sharply divided on what comes next.
Since the military strikes of early 2026, the weaponisation of Middle Eastern energy systems has unsettled international markets.
The main driver has been severe disruption to the Strait of Hormuz, a maritime route that carries one-fifth of the world’s crude oil and liquefied natural gas.
Retaliatory strikes have crippled vital refineries and pushed shipping networks onto costly detours, leaving crude benchmarks repeatedly close to $100 per barrel.
Diplomacy and emergency reserve releases have offered temporary relief, yet the crisis has exposed the fragility of an economy that depends on fossil fuels and has sharpened interest in clean energy independence.
The largest group of respondents, around one-third, expects the disruption to drive fresh investment in alternative energy, particularly renewables.
These readers appear to view fossil fuels as an unstable and geopolitically volatile liability.
For them, the only real route to energy security is a full decoupling from global oil and gas supply chains, and a major Middle Eastern conflict is proof that local green infrastructure is a matter of national security rather than environmental preference.
About 20 per cent of participants favour a complete shift to readily available fossil fuels, including coal. These respondents may be putting immediate survival ahead of long-term sustainability.
They appear to believe nations will fall back on whatever is fast, cheap and available within their own borders, even if that means burning carbon-heavy coal or expanding domestic fracking, to keep factories running and power bills manageable.
A slightly smaller group, around 18 per cent, suggests reviving nuclear power to meet energy demand while limiting emissions.
These readers accept the need to move away from oil and gas but doubt that renewables alone can supply the constant baseload demand of heavy industry.
They regard nuclear as the only proven, emission-free option able to deliver weather-independent energy sovereignty.
Nearly 17 per cent of participants expect no change in global energy dynamics, despite the potential shortfall in supply.
They appear to believe that the world’s infrastructure is too deeply entrenched in the fossil fuel economy to change quickly.
Their reasoning rests on historical precedent.
Crises bring short-term panic, but the financial inertia of oil markets and existing assets means nations will quietly return to familiar habits once the conflict cools, rather than paying the immense bill for structural transformation.
Finally, about 12 per cent of respondents, the smallest group, anticipate an expansion of domestic refining capacity.
Many regions, Europe among them, run relatively old refineries and have seen only modest capacity growth over the years.
That could change given the ongoing disruption in both the Persian Gulf and Russia.
This group argues that importing crude oil means little if a country lacks the specialised infrastructure to turn it into usable fuel.
By expanding domestic refining, they believe a nation can insulate itself from supply shocks, build larger strategic stockpiles and achieve downstream self-reliance even when global trade routes are disrupted.
Taken together, the results show that readers see no single answer to the energy security question.
Roughly half of all respondents look toward cleaner sources, namely renewables and nuclear, while the rest lean toward fossil fuels, refining or the status quo.
The findings suggest that policymakers will face competing pressures as they weigh long-term decarbonisation against the need to keep energy affordable and available if supply routes remain under serious threat.
