The global oil shock triggered by conflict in the Middle East isn't just driving up fuel prices—it's enriching the very companies least accountable to ordinary people. That's the argument from Novara Media, and it's backed by evidence that's difficult to ignore.
The Strait of Hormuz Crisis
There's a war in the Middle East, and that always means one thing: an oil crisis. Unlike the 1973 oil shock, however, this isn't a political boycott. Iran's Revolutionary Guard is effectively imposing a blockade on oil tankers passing through one of the most important shipping chokepoints in the world—the Strait of Hormuz. It's the only route between the Persian Gulf and the open ocean. Iran has vowed not to let even a liter of oil through what they consider to be any US or Israeli-aligned ship.
Even small shipping disruptions due to conflict can push oil prices upward as shipping companies are charged higher insurance premiums on their vessels. But in this case, a total closure that restricts global access to oil supply from Gulf states has caused a price spike that the International Energy Agency claims dwarfs the previous crisis triggered by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Oil prices almost reached $120 per barrel when the illegal US-Israeli attacks on Iran caused Gulf states to significantly reduce their output—tempered somewhat later by an agreement by G7 countries to release oil reserves into the market.
Yet as global reserves start to run dry, the price has crept back up to three figures today, representing an almost 50% increase from the average price of $69 per barrel in 2025.
The Cost to Consumers
High energy prices have huge knock-on effects for the rest of the global economy. It underpins every aspect of production. An increase in the cost of said production gets passed on to consumers. That is, of course, a problem that only afflicts countries that rely on oil and gas for energy.
As was pointed out by Green MP Shan Berry during question time last night, separating the gas price which drives utility bills from the rest of the energy market is crucial. We need to see renewables leading the price of bills because they are much cheaper than gas normally—and at the moment that's shooting up. The cost of investing in the transition away from fossil fuels is the cost of one of these shocks. We've already seen two in the last few years, but they could have been avoided by building more resilience.
This dynamic was reflected during the 2022 oil shock. France managed to cap their bill rises at 4% due to having a decarbonized grid that relies mostly on nuclear power and by fully nationalizing EDF to put the state in charge of prices for utilities rather than big energy companies and international oil prices. The UK, however, does not have this luxury as it still generated 28% of its electricity by gas power in 2025 and still predominantly relies on liquefied natural gas to heat homes.
"The main beneficiaries of high oil prices are the petrochemical companies that extract it. They'll be seeing bumper profits essentially for nothing at the expense of ordinary consumers both in the UK and abroad."
All those extra costs have to go somewhere. And it's not just about energy bills—ordinary Americans rely even more on oil given how dependent they are on cars. The increased cost of petrol at the pumps was one of many reasons that the Democratic party lost votes in 2024, forming a cornerstone of Trump's electoral pitch: "drill baby drill" to bring down costs for motorists—a pledge he's now essentially ditching to butter up the profits of the oil lobby.
Russia's Winning Strategy
While we're on the subject of countries that presidents care more about than their own citizens, there's another player making money when oil prices go up. Russia may be winning the oil war.
To understand why, look at what happened when Western sanctions were applied to Russian oil following the invasion of Ukraine. Those sanctions cut its potential customers, so it had to sell its oil—Urals as it's known—at a discount against Brent crude, the global benchmark. Over the last six months, while prices have tracked each other up and down, there's been a pretty consistent discount gap of $5 to $10 on average. Actually it widened towards the end of last year when among other things the US put India under pressure to stop buying Russian oil.
But since the start of the war, look at what happened as the price spiked: both the gap disappeared completely. In fact, Urals passed Brent. Suddenly Russian oil—which is plentiful and not restrained by the Strait of Hormuz—is in demand. And that is good for Kremlin revenues, which ultimately fund the war.
The Russian state owns a majority of the country's oil industry, meaning those bumper revenues go straight back into the Treasury to finance Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Not only has Trump's illegal war on Iran boosted oil revenues, Trump himself is pushing Russian oil prices up even higher by lifting sanctions. US Treasury Secretary Scott Besson announced a 30-day sanctions waiver to stabilize international oil markets—showing that despite external claims that the administration is unbothered by the economic blowback of their illegal war, figures behind the scenes are worried about the impact of the oil shock on their electoral fortunes at the midterm elections in November.
The Lesson from Norway
If there's one thing that can be learned from Russia, it's that sovereign ownership of natural resources is a key element of both geopolitical and economic security. Compare that to Norway, which has a majority stake in its oil industry unlike the UK that privatized it under Thatcher. Norway isn't using their oil revenues to finance an illegal war either. They've invested it into the biggest sovereign wealth fund in the world and they've used that trillion-dollar fund to finance green energy investment for the transition.
If they had done the same—if we had done that—then we wouldn't have to worry about any kind of price shock at all. In fact, we'd probably be able to do what Norway does, which is export electricity to us through underground cables. Not only has their sovereign wealth fund allowed them to decarbonize quickly and create so much energy abundance they can sell us energy—we haven't done that same investment.
On top of this, they also own oil fields in the North Sea in British territory. So the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund is making money off our resources while we're being held hostage by fossil fuel prices again.
Bottom Line
The strongest part of this argument is the comparative analysis—France's nationalized energy model versus UK's privatized approach shows a clear path to protecting consumers from price shocks. The vulnerability, though, is structural: even if you accept the premise that nationalization works, building political will to nationalize in the UK or US seems more fantasy than policy. The piece makes a compelling case for renewable transition as economic resilience, but frames it almost entirely through fossil fuel failure rather than climate imperative—leaving the strongest argument half on the table.