These policies were designed to keep economies functioning, societies stable and governments in power – reinforcing an argument that Richard Haass and I made in a recent commentary.
Energy security can no longer be understood simply as securing adequate fuel supplies. It must also encompass diversification, redundancy, strategic reserves, hardened infrastructure, alternative transportation routes, fuel flexibility and reduced exposure to single points of failure. The war with Iran has become a real-world test of that framework.
The great irony is that US President Donald Trump returned to office championing American energy dominance and continued growth of hydrocarbons. Yet the disruption associated with his war is accelerating exactly what many oil producers feared: an earlier arrival of peak oil demand.
That outcome has been hastened not because climate policy suddenly triumphed, nor because governments collectively decided to consume less oil, but because energy insecurity forced everyone to adapt.
Thus, an enduring legacy of the war lies in how it has reshaped the way governments, companies and consumers think about energy security.
The assumptions that defined the pre-war energy system – abundant supply, reliable transit through the Strait of Hormuz and confidence that disruptions would be temporary – no longer stand. Three months of disruption, scarcity, and forced adaptation have moved peak demand from the horizon to the rearview mirror.
Carolyn Kissane is Associate Dean and Clinical Professor at the New York University School of Professional Studies Center for Global Affairs and Founding Director of NYU’s Energy, Climate, and Sustainability Lab. This commentary first appeared on Project Syndicate.