American farmers are slammed by war 7,000 miles away

A distant war can affect American farmers because farming depends heavily on globally traded fuel and fertilizer. When conflict disrupts shipping, production, or energy supplies, costs rise far beyond the battlefield. Farmers then pay more to operate tractors, transport crops, and prepare fields.

The article links the U.S. and Israel’s attack on Iran to disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz. That waterway handles roughly a third of global seaborne fertilizer trade, including urea, ammonia, and sulfur. The resulting shortages and uncertainty pushed fertilizer prices up between 10% and 50% over the past year. Diesel also reached $6.28 per gallon by early October, nearly 70% above February’s level.

These increases squeeze farms that already operate on thin margins. Higher input costs can reduce income, raise production risks, and contribute to greater farm debt. The article says fertilizer prices may remain elevated through 2028, making a diplomatic end to the war and more predictable trade policies important for farmers.

The sharpest export collapse occurred in China, a major buyer of American farm goods. USDA Economic Research Service data cited in the article show that U.S. agricultural exports to China fell 66% in 2025. That decline particularly damaged soybean producers, who lost access to a critical market.

Washington responded with emergency support. The administration announced $12 billion in one-time payments last December. The article says that help proved insufficient. Last week, USDA announced nearly $14 billion in additional payments through Agriculture Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage for the 2025 crop year. The new package was described as a record.

Exports to Mexico, Canada, Japan, South Korea, and the European Union also fell 6%, although increased sales elsewhere offset some losses. The overall result was billions of dollars in lost sales. The payments provide short-term relief, but they do not restore damaged trade relationships or remove the policies that contributed to the disruption.

The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow sea passage used by ships moving between the Persian Gulf and the wider world. Its importance comes from the enormous amount of trade that passes through it. When conflict threatens the route, ships may face delays, higher insurance costs, or reduced access to supplies.

For fertilizer, the consequences are especially serious. The article says the strait handles roughly a third of global seaborne fertilizer trade. That trade includes major volumes of urea, ammonia, and sulfur. These materials are inputs for fertilizers used by farmers. Disruptions therefore reduce available supplies or make them more expensive to move.

The article connects the war involving Iran with fertilizer prices that rose 10% to 50% over the past year. Industry experts expect elevated prices to last at least through 2028. American farmers consequently face higher costs even though the conflict and shipping route are thousands of miles away.

Farmers buy fuel to run machinery and transport crops, while fertilizer supports crop production. Both markets depend on international supplies and transport. Wars can damage production facilities, block routes, and make shipments riskier. Sanctions can also restrict trade with major producers, reducing the amount available to buyers.

The article cites several linked disruptions. Attacks on petrochemical infrastructure, sanctions against Moscow, and other export problems associated with the Ukraine War helped raise energy costs. The war involving Iran added further disruption through the Strait of Hormuz. By early October, average U.S. diesel prices reached $6.28 per gallon, nearly 70% above February’s level. Fertilizers dependent on urea, ammonia, and sulfur rose 10% to 50%.

Farmers absorb these increases before crops are sold. Higher fuel and fertilizer bills reduce already-thin margins and intensify borrowing pressure. The USDA forecast total farm-sector debt at $605.1 billion in September 2026, nearly 5% above 2025 in nominal terms.

Tariffs are taxes charged on goods brought into a country. Governments may use them to protect domestic producers or pressure trading partners. But tariffs can also make trade more expensive and provoke other countries to impose retaliatory barriers. For farmers, that can mean losing access to important foreign buyers.

The article links the first Trump administration’s protectionist turn and later trade salvos to worsening agricultural exports. U.S. agricultural exports to China fell 66% in 2025, while exports to several other major partners fell 6%. At the same time, tariffs can raise costs when imported fuel, fertilizer, machinery, or their components become more expensive. Farmers therefore face weaker sales and higher expenses together.

Emergency payments may cover part of the damage, but they do not rebuild trading relationships. The article describes a cycle in which Washington creates risks, taxpayers absorb losses, and the underlying policies remain. It calls for reassessing tariffs and creating a more predictable framework.

Agriculture Risk Coverage, or ARC, and Price Loss Coverage, or PLC, are federal programs that provide payments when farm revenue or covered crop prices fall below established levels. They are designed to cushion producers against market downturns. In the article, USDA announced nearly $14 billion through these programs for the 2025 crop year.

The payments can help farmers manage a sudden income shortfall. However, large commercial farms often have advantages when applying for and using aid. They generally have better access to credit, more diversified revenue, and greater capacity to absorb temporary losses. They also have more experience navigating farm-assistance programs. Those advantages make them more able to benefit from payments and survive delays or uncertainty.

Smaller and mid-sized farms have less room for error. They may depend more heavily on one crop, one market, or current cash flow. The article therefore warns that repeated bailouts can conceal policy costs without solving the trade and input problems that caused the financial pressure.

Farming combines high operating costs with uncertain selling prices. Farmers must buy fuel, fertilizer, and other inputs before knowing what their crops will earn. International trade and energy markets influence both sides of that calculation. A disruption can therefore reduce revenue, increase costs, or do both at once.

The article gives a clear example. Agricultural exports to China fell 66% in 2025, harming soybean producers. Meanwhile, war-related disruptions pushed diesel to $6.28 per gallon and lifted fertilizer prices 10% to 50%. Farmers faced weaker foreign demand while paying more to plant, maintain, and transport crops. Futures contracts help manage some ordinary price risk, but they cannot eliminate policy-driven shocks.

The result is greater financial pressure across the farm sector. USDA forecast debt at about $605.1 billion in September 2026, nearly 5% above 2025. The article argues for diplomacy, reassessed tariffs, and predictable policies focused on genuine agricultural risks rather than repeated emergency bailouts.