The war involving the United States, Israel, and Iran is threatening the food security of millions of people worldwide and not just in the Middle East, according to new research published in the journal Global Food Security.

Although a fragile ceasefire has temporarily halted the ferocious hostilities that erupted on February 28, the core problem is yet to be resolved: Iran’s move to impede the passage of trade and oil through the Strait of Hormuz and the subsequent US blockade of Iranian ports.

The study’s authors, affiliated with the University of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates, warn that the disruption in the Strait of Hormuz has driven up energy costs, triggering cascading shocks across food systems and worsening food security across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) as well as East Africa, regions already grappling with chronic vulnerability.

“Geopolitical conflict in the Arabian Gulf carries profound implications for global food security that extend far beyond the immediate theater of hostilities,” they write. “The Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 20% of global petroleum and one-fifth of liquefied natural gas trade transits daily, represents a critical chokepoint whose disruption simultaneously increases fertilizer costs and raises food processing and cold-chain operating costs.”

The research finds that the war has also inflated maritime insurance premiums, fueling speculative spikes in commodity prices, eroding household purchasing power, and undermining both physical and sociocultural food environments in vulnerable regions.

“When that channel is disrupted, the shockwaves don't stay in the Gulf,” said Farah Naja, professor of nutritional epidemiology at the University of Sharjah and the study’s lead author. “They ripple through every stage of getting food from farm to table” with devastating consequences for tens of millions of people who are already facing food shortages.

The war that fuels hunger

The study traces how a single geopolitical flashpoint can simultaneously drive up the cost of producing food, given that fertilizers are derived from natural gas. Countries that now constitute the theater of military operations are not only vulnerable to closures and blockades but also happen to be global players in gas production and exports.

This dynamic, the authors note, makes it “more expensive to process and refrigerate food, inflate shipping costs, spike retail prices on grocery shelves, and ultimately push the world's most vulnerable families into hunger or nutritionally depleted diets.”

The researchers identify the MENA region, already home to tens of millions of people facing acute food insecurity, as particularly exposed and among the most vulnerable. However, they stress that “no country is truly insulated from these cascading shocks,” underscoring the global dimension of the war and its consequences.

The significance of the study lies in both its timing and scope. It provides a real-time analysis of an active conflict, drawing on lessons from three previous crises: the 2007–08 food price surge, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Russia-Ukraine war.

Despite its stark projections, the study argues that the world already possesses the knowledge and the policy tools needed to mitigate the worst impacts of the war if governments act decisively now, rather than responding after irreversible damage has been done.

US-Israel-Iran War is rewriting global diets

Food and energy are inseparable. Modern farming requires roughly 10 fossil fuel calories to produce a single food calorie. “When a war cuts off oil and gas, food gets more expensive almost immediately,” Prof. Naja explained. “The Strait of Hormuz is a food chokepoint, not just an energy chokepoint. Between 20–30% of the world's fertilizer exports pass through it. Since the conflict began, urea prices have already risen ~36% above pre-war levels, and the FAO estimates roughly 3–4 million tonnes of fertilizer trade per month have stalled."

Price shocks do not just mean less food; they mean worse food. Mohamad Alameddine, a co-author and professor of health management and policy, warned that diets were not only changing but also worsening. “When household budgets shrink, families stop buying fruits, vegetables, and proteins first. They shift toward cheaper, ultra-processed, calorie-dense options. This quietly worsens long-term health even when people aren't visibly starving.”

Prof. Alameddine emphasized that children and pregnant women bear the heaviest burden. “Nutritional deficits in the first 1,000 days of life cause irreversible cognitive and developmental damage, and the economic cost to affected countries can reach 2–3% of GDP.”
Unlike localized production shocks, energy and fertilizer-driven shocks affect virtually every stage of the food system simultaneously, stressed Katia Hazim, a research assistant and a co-author. Such shocks, she explained, amplify both the speed and the scale at which food insecurity spreads.

"The costs of institutional inaction fall most heavily on the world's most food-insecure populations,” Hazim said. “Strengthening multilateral food security governance remains a moral and strategic imperative regardless of the prevailing geopolitical climate."

The world will pay huge price in case of inaction

The study cites multiple real-world indicators of international engagement. These include warnings issued by Yara International, one of the world's largest fertilizer producers, which has publicly flagged the conflict's impact on food security amid the ongoing war. The study also references key multilateral institutions such as the FAO, IEA, IFPRI, WFP, and World Bank as actively monitoring and reporting in real time on the conflict's implications for food and energy systems.

"Geopolitical conflict in the Arabian Gulf carries profound implications for global food security that extend far beyond the immediate theater of hostilities,” said Prof. Naja. “The costs of institutional inaction fall most heavily on the world's most food-insecure populations, and strengthening multilateral food security governance remains a moral and strategic imperative regardless of the prevailing geopolitical climate."

To address the food security crisis, the study proposes a concrete, three-pronged framework outlining measures to mitigate global food price volatility and rising food insecurity: interventions at the household and community level, at the national level, and at the international level.

“Unlike localized production shocks, energy- and fertilizer-driven shocks affect virtually every stage of the food system simultaneously, amplifying both the speed and scale at which food insecurity can spread,” the authors note. “Addressing the food security risks associated with this war therefore requires a proactive, multi-level approach that integrates household preparedness, community resilience, national food security policies, and international institutional reforms.”

Drawing on history and precedents, the authors urge policymakers and governments to learn from past crises. “History keeps teaching the same lesson, and we keep forgetting it,” Prof. Naja said. “Reactive responses to food crises are always costlier than proactive ones. The countries that invested in strategic grain reserves and social protection systems before COVID-19 fared significantly better. The same logic applies now.”