How the Iran war could make Trump an accidental climate president

“Accidental climate president” describes an unintended result, not a change in Trump’s beliefs. He has called global warming a “hoax,” criticized clean energy, supported fossil fuels, and weakened environmental protections. Yet the war is making oil and gas look dangerously exposed to conflict.

The conflict pushed oil prices above $100 a barrel and disrupted gas supplies. That shock encouraged countries to seek energy sources less dependent on vulnerable shipping routes. Solar power, wind power, and electric vehicles can reduce reliance on imported fuels and unstable chokepoints.

The result could undermine the demand Trump’s policies aim to support. Global oil demand is now forecast to decline by 2.5 million barrels a day in 2026, while fossil fuel emissions may fall 0.5%. The shift is not guaranteed, because some countries are turning to coal instead.

Oil and gas supplies depend on routes, facilities, and producers that can become targets during conflict. When those links are threatened, energy may still exist underground, but reaching buyers becomes slower, costlier, and less reliable. That vulnerability can affect prices and national energy planning.

Iran’s pressure on the Strait of Hormuz created the biggest oil shock in history, according to the article. Shipping costs surged, and Iran-backed Houthis attacked Saudi oil facilities and tankers. New conflict fronts kept pressure on energy markets even after Iran’s control of the strait loosened.

The disruption changed expectations about demand. The IEA moved from forecasting a 930,000-barrel-a-day increase in global oil demand to forecasting a 2.5-million-barrel-a-day decline in 2026. The gas market also suffered a major supply shock, with demand expected to shrink 0.5%.

The Strait of Hormuz is vital because roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas passed through it. A disruption there can affect energy markets far beyond the surrounding region. Buyers face uncertainty, while ships, insurers, and traders face higher risks and costs.

When Iran strangled the strait after the US and Israel launched their war, the price of a barrel of oil rose above $100. Shipping costs also surged. Attacks by Iran-backed Houthis on Saudi oil facilities and tankers opened additional pressure points, helping the price shock persist.

The conflict also changed the demand outlook. In January, the IEA predicted global oil demand would rise by 930,000 barrels a day in 2026. By September, it predicted a decline of 2.5 million barrels a day, blaming the impasse in US-Iran negotiations.

Expensive fuel changes the financial calculation for households, businesses, and governments. Electric vehicles can reduce dependence on petrol and diesel, while solar power can replace some gas- or oil-based electricity. Both options become more appealing when fossil fuel prices are high and unpredictable.

The article links the Middle East crisis to stronger EV sales in Europe, Australia, and parts of Asia. European sales reached record highs in 2026, while diesel prices rose 38% since the war began. Southeast Asian investment in solar capacity roughly quadrupled during the first two quarters of the year.

Security matters as much as price. Much Southeast Asian liquefied natural gas comes from the Gulf, so countries made a quicker pivot toward solar. Renewables do not rely on a few volatile chokepoints in the same way as oil and gas, though the transition will take time.

The United States moved against the broader trend because government policy reduced support for electric vehicles. Instead of helping buyers and manufacturers respond to high fuel costs, the Trump administration cut incentives and restricted access to cheaper models.

The article says the administration effectively banned cheaper Chinese EVs. That matters because lower prices can make electric cars more accessible to consumers. With fewer policy supports and fewer low-cost choices, US buyers faced weaker reasons to switch from conventional vehicles.

The result was a sharp contrast with Europe, Australia, and parts of Asia. Global EV sales rose 4% in the second quarter of 2026, but US sales fell more than 30% during the year so far. The article presents this as a policy-driven exception, not evidence that the wider trend has stopped.

The war can create lasting energy changes when governments decide that security requires different infrastructure. Solar, wind, and electrification reduce dependence on imported fuels and narrow shipping chokepoints. Once countries build that capacity, the investments and supply chains can continue shaping energy use after prices settle.

Southeast Asian solar investment roughly quadrupled in the first two quarters of 2026. The region receives most of its liquefied natural gas from the Gulf, so the conflict encouraged a quicker pivot. Dozens of countries also adopted policies to switch from fossil fuels to clean power after the war began.

The transition is uneven. Some countries are buying more coal instead of moving directly to renewables. Coal can replace disrupted fuels, but it is the dirtiest fossil fuel. Experts expect a wider shift away from oil and gas, yet grid changes and mass EV adoption remain lengthy processes.

Fossil fuels contain carbon stored underground. When coal, oil, or gas burns, that carbon combines with oxygen and releases carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide traps some heat in the atmosphere, increasing the planet’s average temperature. Burning fossil fuels also releases other warming pollutants, so reducing their use lowers climate pressure.

Renewable electricity from sources such as sunlight and wind produces power without burning coal, oil, or gas during generation. Electric vehicles likewise have no tailpipe fuel combustion. If their electricity comes increasingly from clean sources, driving produces far fewer fossil-fuel emissions than conventional transport.

The article connects this mechanism to current changes. Global fossil fuel emissions are expected to fall around 0.5% in 2026, and EV sales are rising in several regions. The climate benefit depends on how electricity is generated, while coal use can weaken the overall gains.