The Trump administration’s war with Iran has further upended the false narrative that climate skeptics tout and has handed progressive leaders the most powerful economic argument against reliance on fossil fuels they have had in a generation. When the Trump administration’s strikes on Iran triggered the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas supply was cut off from global markets overnight. Brent crude, the metric for the global price of oil, surged to nearly $120 per barrel, and the head of the International Energy Agency has described the disruption as the “greatest global energy security challenge in history.” The consequences have been immediate and far-reaching, making clear the benefits of investing in clean energy.
Countries all over the world are facing economic shocks in the form of surging prices, shortages, and growing inflation. South Korea, which imports 20 percent of its gas from the region, announced a 100 trillion won stabilization fund to cope with soaring energy prices. The Philippine government instituted a mandatory four-day work week to save on energy as global electricity costs rise. The European Union unveiled new financial guarantees for fusion energy and investments in nuclear innovation after decades of shuttering nuclear plants.
While working people pay the price, the fossil fuel industry is booking profits. Even before the war, the five largest oil and gas companies made more than $100 billion in profit just in 2024 alone. Analysts say the crisis is a windfall for oil and gas companies such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and TotalEnergies, which stand to benefit from higher prices for every barrel they sell. Rather than a byproduct of the war, this is the political economy of fossil fuel dependence made visible.
Progressive leaders must recognize this moment as an opening to make the case that a clean economy delivers lasting benefits for working people and strengthens national security. As the Iran shock has made clear, the case for accelerating the clean energy transition rests on three mutually reinforcing pillars: It is an affordability imperative for working families, a strategic necessity for national security and industrial productivity, and a proven political proposition that governments can use to rebuild trust with their constituencies.
The affordability argument belongs to progressives
The war has handed progressive governments the affordability argument by showing in real time that volatile fossil fuels were always the riskier and costlier bet. Since the war began, the price of Brent crude has increased nearly 32 percent, U.S. gasoline prices have skyrocketed nearly 40 percent, and jet fuel has seen more than a 92 percent price increase in some places. The impacts of energy price fluctuations are not limited to the energy sector. They move through food, transport, housing costs, and inflation, touching every line of a household budget. These are the predictable result of a global energy system built on commodities that can be disrupted by any conflict, anywhere, at any time. Instead of delivering affordability, the fossil fuel-first strategy has brought record profits for the industry while passing volatility costs on to consumers and governments.
An alternative path is possible, and renewable energy is already cost-competitive. The International Energy Agency has confirmed that 91 percent of new renewable energy capacity added globally costs less than new fossil fuel generation. Unlike fossil fuels, the cost of renewable energy is not set by global commodity markets. Once the infrastructure is built, the price is largely fixed—insulated from the supply shocks, speculation, and geopolitical disruptions that have always made fossil fuel prices unpredictable. The fundamental difference is not that renewables are without risk, but that their risks do not compound in a crisis.
Indeed, several countries further along in the transition have been better positioned to withstand the current oil and gas shocks. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has credited advances in clean energy for Spain’s immunity from many of the recent price hikes: “Spain is showing how commitment to renewables ensures our citizens, our industries and our businesses are experiencing less of an impact from gas prices.” As other countries wrestle with soaring fuel costs, Spain and Portugal have seen falling electricity prices in recent weeks, with costs at roughly one-seventh of those in Germany and France.
The geopolitical case is now crystal clear
Kuwait Petroleum’s CEO has described Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz as “an attack that is holding the world’s economy hostage,” warning of a “domino effect” across the globe whose costs “extend all the way through [the] supply chain.” He is right—and progressives should say so loudly.
Energy security—long weaponized by fossil fuel interests as an argument for more drilling—is now most credibly understood as an argument for reducing dependence on globally traded commodities that any conflict can disrupt. Increasing the volume of domestic fossil fuel production will not improve a nation’s security because oil is a globally traded commodity vulnerable to shocks anywhere. Supply chain resilience, energy sovereignty, and industrial competitiveness all point toward the same destination: building out domestic clean energy capacity and forging trade partnerships built around shared industrial standards and mutual clean energy investment.
The stakes of that race are already visible. China accounts for more than 80 percent of global solar panel manufacturing, more than 60 percent of wind turbine production, and the dominant share of battery and electric vehicle supply chains. The countries that build manufacturing capacity in clean technology will hold decisive strategic and economic advantages for decades. The Trump administration’s dismantling of industrial climate policy, combined with illegal tariffs on clean energy imports from allies and competitors alike, will not protect workers. It will deprive them of the jobs the next industrial era will create, and it represents a governing coalition whose priorities serve the fossil fuel interests that benefit most from ceding the clean energy race.
Rebuilding trust: delivering a clean energy economy that people can feel
The Iran war has thrown the economic and security imperatives for the clean energy transition into stark relief. But the political case is equally compelling. Across major democracies, the populist wave of the past decade is showing signs of weakening. Polling from Global Progress Action, Datapraxis, and YouGov finds that more than 70 percent of people reject far-right leadership styles, reflecting a clear public appetite for responsible governance as a driver of tangible change. At the same time, up to 89 percent of the world’s population supports greater climate action, and growing numbers make a direct connection between the green transition and relief from cost-of-living pressures.
Progressive that have made this case concretely have won—often decisively. In 2025, Anthony Albanese became the first Australian prime minister in more than two decades to win back-to-back elections, running on a platform that directly linked clean energy investment to cheaper household power and regional job creation. In Canada, Mark Carney reframed decarbonization as a national competitiveness and affordability strategy to defeat a conservative opposition that campaigned on rolling back climate policy. In the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer’s Labour government has built its economic renewal agenda on a promise to make Britain a clean energy superpower—connecting that promise to lower energy bills and new manufacturing jobs in communities that had stopped believing the government could deliver anything for them.
Climate action wins when it is inseparable from economic security. Voters are not against the green energy transition. They oppose bearing its costs without seeing its benefits. The governments that have broken through have understood this distinction and built their campaigns, their messaging, and their governing priorities around it. More so, implementation becomes a proof point that governments can work in the interest of both the people and the planet.
Recommendations
The oil shock has handed progressive leaders a major opportunity. The question is whether they will seize it. Progressive leaders must:
- Frame climate action as economic transformation and communicate it relentlessly: Position clean energy as the path to affordability, jobs, and security, rather than a moral obligation or distant climate goal. Renewable energy shields families from fossil fuel price volatility, domestic manufacturing reduces import dependence, and energy efficiency cuts household bills. When opponents claim climate policy hurts workers, expose how fossil fuel incumbents profit from the status quo while blocking cheaper, cleaner alternatives for people. At the same time, actively communicate and brand clean energy projects, celebrate manufacturing openings, and publicize bill reductions that help working people.
- Integrate climate ambition into industrial policy and prioritize worker-centered benefits: Do not silo climate policy inside environment ministries. Instead, policymakers should embed decarbonization targets into a durable industrial strategy that prioritizes workforce development, strong labor standards, productive trade, and high-growth green sectors. Aligning sectoral ministries and budget priorities around clear implementation roadmaps that link climate targets with affordability, job creation, and economic resilience can promote a green economy while strengthening national competitiveness.
- Embrace clean energy technological leadership as national security and geopolitical strategy: Countries that develop and deploy next-generation energy technologies will shape the global industries that dominate the coming decades. Investing in clean energy, manufacturing capacity, and export infrastructure can help reduce dependence on rivals for critical energy supplies and strengthen national resilience in the face of external shocks.
Conclusion
President Donald Trump’s war with Iran has stripped away the latest excuse for inaction. Fossil fuels do not provide stability; they generate volatility, dependence, and profits for a few at the expense of many. The countries that have invested in clean energy are weathering this crisis better than those that have not. Spain is living proof that embracing the energy transition will deliver both economic benefits and global progress. This moment of crisis is an opening to build something better. By connecting decarbonization directly to affordability, jobs, and national security, progressive governments can deliver an economy that works for people.