– Oil is rarely the cause of war
It is a misconception to talk about “oil wars” and about great powers going to war to secure energy. Oil is rarely the cause of war – but often one of the most important instruments once a conflict has started, according to an energy researcher.
– We should draw a sharp distinction between oil as a cause of war and oil as an instrument in warfare, says Dag Harald Claes. He is a professor of political science at The University of Oslo and has researched oil, energy and international politics for many years.
Claes has recently published “Energy Politics in a Turbulent Era”, which examines the role of energy and oil in war and conflicts.
According to the energy researcher, a notion has taken hold in the media and elsewhere that oil has become the very symbol of modern war and conflict.
– We easily slip into the idea that “it’s all about oil” when we look at the US role in the Middle East, Russia’s war in Ukraine, and also Iran’s recent closure of the Strait of Hormuz, says the political scientist.
A political and military instrument
According to him, there are hardly any wars that actually start because of oil. What we do have many examples of is that oil and gas are used as instruments to put pressure on the opponent, to finance warfare, or as a tool of sanctions.
– Oil is a political and military card, but not what is decisive in triggering war, Claes emphasizes.
He points, among other things, to the oil embargo against the US in 1973, which was meant to pressure the Americans to stop supporting Israel, and to repeated earlier threats to close the Strait of Hormuz in order to force changes in US policy towards Iran.
– In such cases, oil is a political and military card, but it is not the actual cause of war, he stresses.
The energy researcher, who recently presented his findings to the interdisciplinary “Oil and Society Network” at the University of Oslo and at the University of Westminster in London, believes the same pattern is visible today.
– The war in Ukraine is first and foremost about territory and state sovereignty. Putin will not accept a Ukraine that is an independent, Western-oriented state. Energy enters the picture as sanctions going both ways between Russia and the EU, Claes points out.
He notes that Russia limited gas supplies to Europe before the attack in 2022. After the attack, the EU cut imports from Russia. Europe has had to manage the loss of around 40 percent of its former gas supply from Russia.
– But, again: that same gas is not the reason the war started, he emphasizes.
The Strait of Hormuz – Iran’s strongest card
Particularly relevant today is the US use of force against Iran and the subsequent closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Dag Harald Claes points out that between 15 and 20 percent of the world’s oil consumption normally passes through this strait every day, in addition to gas and other goods. The recent closure of the strait affected food prices, energy supplies, and industrial production globally.
Claes reminds us that the large oil reserves many oil-dependent countries have built up, and China’s rapid reduction in oil consumption, made the closure less dramatic than one might have expected.
– Even so, the explicit threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, and the ability to actually do so, is Iran’s strongest card, says the energy researcher.
Previously, the US assessment, according to Claes, was that they could reopen the strait militarily, even if Iran managed to close it for a short period. The experience of the war in Ukraine has changed this calculation.
Claes points out that Iran has acquired a new weapon: a large number of drones – modeled on the drones that have been developed in Ukraine.
– These are small, relatively cheap, and difficult to defend against, he says, and notes that when an ultra-large supertanker can carry over 3 million barrels of oil on board, each cargo represents values no shipping company can risk losing. The risk picture thus becomes brutal.
– If you hit an oil tanker, it burns. In that way, Hormuz becomes not only a geographical bottleneck, but a political and economic weapon, says the energy and conflict researcher.
The US is not dependent on energy from the Middle East
Dag Harald Claes also emphasizes that the US energy situation is radically different from before.
– Since the shale oil revolution around 2008, the US has become a net exporter of both oil and gas, says the political scientist.
At the same time, he reminds us that the US, despite what many believe, has never been heavily dependent on the Middle East for oil. Historically, much of US oil has come from close neighbors such as Canada, Mexico and Venezuela.
– But the oil market is global and the price is set internationally. American motorists pay gasoline prices that reflect crises in Hormuz, regardless of where the oil physically comes from, he explains.
When the gasoline price in the US passes certain thresholds – “five dollars per gallon is a political red flag” – the distance between decisions taken in Washington and everyday life at American gas stations becomes small, according to Claes.
– Then we see the chain that runs from a US presidential decision to bomb Iran, via Iran’s response in Hormuz, to the price voters pay to fill their tanks, he stresses.
Sun and wind cannot be owned by individual states
Many countries in the world are in the process of transitioning to greener energy. Dag Harald Claes is not sure the world will become less conflict-ridden as we become less dependent on fossil fuels, partly because wars and conflicts rarely start because of energy resources.
The professor of political science nonetheless sees some potential for less conflict if green energy becomes our most important energy source.
– Sun and wind are resources that no one can own in the same way as oil and gas. They exist to some extent everywhere and are often described as a “free gift of nature”. When individual countries build up renewable energy systems and become more self-sufficient in electricity, they become less vulnerable to other suppliers cutting off supplies in a conflict, says Claes.
He emphasizes, however, that renewable energy can also be politicized.
– If one country or one region develops large-scale wind and solar power and becomes the main supplier of electricity to others that have not “done the job at home”, electricity can be used as a means of pressure in the same way that gas is used today, he says.
The difference, according to Claes, lies in the degree of dependence.
– The more a country can cover its energy needs with its own resources, the harder it becomes for others to use energy as a weapon, he stresses.