From Hormuz to Bab el-Mandeb: The Global Energy Crisis and Pakistan’s Diplomatic Test

The escalating crisis in the Middle East has now moved far beyond a regional conflict. Severe disruption to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, growing tensions around Bab el-Mandeb, and the closure of Saudi Arabia’s East–West Pipeline have placed the global energy system under extraordinary pressure. The consequences extend beyond oil markets to international trade, inflation, industrial production, and economic stability.
Before the crisis, approximately 20 million barrels of oil passed through the Strait of Hormuz each day. Recent reports indicate that traffic has fallen to around 10 million barrels per day. Meanwhile, growing tensions around Bab el-Mandeb have placed the Red Sea and Suez Canal route under additional strain. The closure of Saudi Arabia’s East–West Pipeline, designed to provide an alternative to Hormuz, has further complicated the situation.
The economic scale of the crisis can be understood through a cautious estimate. If the global market faces a shortfall of 10 million barrels per day and oil prices rise by $20 per barrel, the additional cost of crude oil would amount to $200 million per day. A $40 increase would raise that figure to $400 million per day. If the supply risk reaches 20 million barrels per day, the additional cost could range from $400 million to $800 million per day.
These figures cover only the additional cost of crude oil. Shipping, insurance, refining, natural gas, electricity, food, and industrial costs are not included. The actual economic impact could therefore be considerably greater. Nevertheless, supply at risk, actual shortages, and price increases are not identical. Strategic reserves, alternative routes, and market expectations can all influence the final outcome.
The consequences of higher energy prices extend from the fuel pump to almost every sector of the economy. Transport costs rise, agricultural inputs become more expensive, electricity generation faces additional pressure, and industries such as chemicals, plastics, textiles, cement, steel, and packaging experience higher operating costs. For Pakistan, which relies heavily on imported energy, the implications include a larger import bill, pressure on the rupee, difficulties in the current account, and renewed inflationary pressures.
The growing confrontation between Iran and the United States, the defense partnership between Israel and the United States, support from certain European countries, and Iran’s relations with Russia and China have added a global dimension to the conflict. Yet the crisis cannot be understood solely as a confrontation between two international blocs. The interests of Gulf states, Yemen’s internal politics, and the priorities of different armed groups also shape the situation. Responsibility for attacks must therefore be assessed through credible evidence and independent verification rather than political claims alone.
With the United States heading toward its November 2026 midterm elections, oil prices, inflation, and the cost of war are likely to become important domestic political issues. It would be premature to conclude that an energy crisis will automatically benefit or harm any particular party or candidate. However, the American administration may face growing pressure over its military strategy, public expenditure, and economic consequences.
For Pakistan, the central challenge is not emotional alignment but the protection of national interests. Its historical and geographical ties with Iran, alongside its defense, economic, and people-to-people relations with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, give Islamabad a unique diplomatic position. The diplomatic efforts led by Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir, alongside Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and other officials, could become a source of strength if transformed into a sustained, institutional policy.
Pakistan should support secure commercial navigation, limited ceasefires, direct negotiations between Iran and Arab states, and the protection of international energy corridors. A regional maritime-security framework involving the United Nations, the Gulf Cooperation Council, Iran, the United States, European countries, Türkiye, and Pakistan could help reduce the risk of further escalation. Emergency oil reserves, alternative import routes, pipeline security, and LNG supply planning should form part of a coordinated international response.
The long-term solution lies not in military power alone, but in a comprehensive regional security agreement covering maritime navigation, drone and missile attacks, support for armed groups, and mutual non-interference. The world does not need another military front; it needs secure energy corridors and credible diplomacy. If Pakistan adopts a balanced, active, and principled role, it can protect its national interests while contributing meaningfully to global peace and economic stability.