Bottom Lines Up Front
- The global energy map is being redrawn while the Middle East crisis is still unfolding. The risk is that emerging narratives harden into an investment hierarchy before the physical energy system has changed, distorting capital flows and ultimately weakening energy security and affordability.
- For the Middle East, this crisis is an opportunity to move beyond energy exports and alternative routes toward a broader role in mineral and industrial supply chains, AI, and data centers, using its affordable energy advantage to support energy-intensive industry while continuing exports.
- For the United States, a more industrialized Middle East could strengthen energy and supply-chain security by adding mineral processing and other strategic capacity. A broader minerals partnership could link US technology, capital, and demand with region’s mineral and affordable energy sources, expanding the relationship beyond energy exports into a wider industrial and strategic partnership.
A crisis that lasts weeks is managed; one that lasts months or years is designed around. That distinction increasingly shapes how governments view the Middle East war, which is shifting in policy discourse from a shock to a condition.
This conflict is not occurring in isolation. It is unfolding alongside the Russia-Ukraine war, strained refining capacity, and renewed risks to shipping and energy infrastructure. As it persists, the key question is where investment will go and whether the world will retain enough energy production, refining, and infrastructure capacity.
Governments initially respond tactically through emergency cargoes, new suppliers, rerouted flows, and inventory draws. But when disruption persists, those measures begin to shape longer-term strategy. Contingency planning becomes strategy, strategy becomes investment, and investment redraws the energy map.
The crisis has been experienced unevenly. For the United States, the direct impact has been relatively limited, while the disruption has created an opportunity to expand energy exports and strengthen the role of US and broader Western Hemisphere energy supplies. For Europe, it has meant price exposure rather than physical shortage; for Asian importers dependent on the region’s energy molecules, access and flows have been the immediate concern. Each narrative has merit, but if it hardens into an absolute, it can distort investment and weaken the security and affordability it seeks to protect. The test is whether it remains balanced, pragmatic, and grounded in the energy system’s physical and economic realities.
The Western Hemisphere: Addition, not replacement
The strongest emerging narrative is that the Western Hemisphere could become the center of global supply. A senior White House official called it the “center of the energy universe,” from Alaska to Argentina, emphasizing energy addition and infrastructure. The logic is clear: the United States combines oil, gas, nuclear, renewables, and minerals; Canada is a major producer; Latin America holds hydrocarbons, hydropower, and critical minerals; and Venezuela could again matter. More supply and redundancy strengthen global energy security.
The analytical error is moving from addition to replacement. The Western Hemisphere can hedge war-related disruption and add diversification, but it cannot replace the Middle East. The risk is a new investment hierarchy that redirects capital away from the region, creating an energy security risk. The Middle East’s scale, cost structure, infrastructure, and role in affordability cannot be replicated quickly, if at all. Energy security depends on more supply, routes, producers, processing capacity, and investment across regions—not on strengthening one pillar by weakening another.
Relegating the Middle East to a secondary source
Substitution logic has another consequence: investors may start viewing the Middle East as a higher-risk source, while expecting producers to carry more of the cost of protecting export infrastructure. The reasoning is increasingly voiced in investor and policy circles. “Producers have the resources, the molecules are theirs, and secure routes serve their interests.” For a consuming economy, the question follows: why deploy scarce capital into Middle Eastern infrastructure when it could support domestic generation or supply elsewhere?
Transaction by transaction, the logic may appear rational. As a broader strategy, however, it creates a contradiction: continued dependence on Middle Eastern supply alongside declining external investment in the infrastructure that makes it resilient. That is less diversification than underinvestment in a system the world still needs.
Europe: Reduced dependence, unchanged exposure
Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the European Union sharply reduced Russian gas imports and turned increasingly to suppliers such as Norway and the United States. This lowered concentration risk but did not remove exposure to global prices, maritime disruption, or geopolitical shocks.
For Europe, the Middle East crisis has been less about access than about higher and more volatile energy prices. Europe’s new energy narrative is increasingly centered on electrification from domestic sources, with clean power seen to reduce fossil-fuel imports and vulnerability. The logic is compelling, but electricity cannot meet every energy need. Petrochemicals, fertilizers, aviation, shipping, and high-temperature industry will still depend on molecules or molecular feedstocks. The pragmatic path is therefore more domestic electricity alongside diversified external supply.
Asia and the Western Hemisphere’s own demand
For Asia, the Middle East crisis is primarily an access issue, with Asian importers most directly exposed to disruptions in Middle Eastern oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) flows. That is driving interest in Western Hemisphere supply, but diversification is prudent only if it does not become another form of long-term dependence.
The Western Hemisphere is also a growing source of demand: artificial intelligence (AI), data centers, advanced manufacturing, and electrification could significantly increase US electricity needs, meaning today’s extensive LNG export capacity may face greater competition from domestic demand tomorrow. Recent diesel-refined products market stress illustrates the risk. The United States filled part of the gap, but higher domestic prices generated political pressure over exports. Hence export surpluses cannot always be assumed permanent, and long-term security strategies should account for the possibility that today’s export surpluses may not persist.
Beyond rerouting and exporting
For Middle Eastern producers, the response to shifting global energy strategies should go beyond defending export routes: pipelines, terminals, storage, and redundancy remain essential, but the larger opportunity is to bring more global industry closer to the region’s affordable and reliable energy. Using more molecules at home to process minerals, refine metals, power AI and data centers, and support energy-intensive manufacturing—while continuing to export and diversify markets—could shift the region from extraction and export toward higher-value processing, manufacturing, and supply-chain security.
The case is not without constraints. Water and cooling constrain data centers, and war raises the risk premium on capital-intensive projects. The region would therefore need to be selective, focusing on minerals and processing stages where energy, infrastructure, resources, and capital offer a real advantage, with specialized hubs suited to local conditions. External investment could be supported through sovereign co-investment, political-risk insurance, long-term offtake agreements, and more resilient infrastructure. The deeper the region becomes embedded in global industry and supply chains, the more its security becomes a shared interest.
Mineral security as a strategic role
Increasing the Middle East’s role in global mineral security makes a compelling case. The future energy system depends as much on materials as molecules: copper, aluminum, lithium, nickel, rare earths, and other minerals needed for grids, batteries, defense systems, data centers, and advanced manufacturing. In 2023, Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman Al Saud explicitly linked the two, arguing that energy security now extends beyond oil to critical minerals.
The key vulnerability is not only where minerals are mined, but where they are processed, refined, and turned into industrial inputs. The Middle East could help close that gap by combining mineral potential with affordable energy supplies, capital, infrastructure, and geography, while building minerals refining capacity and industrial clusters that retain more value in regional economies.
This also reframes economic diversification. Rather than simply moving away from energy, the region can use its energy advantage differently: continue exporting molecules while using more of them at home to support mineral processing, AI infrastructure, chemicals, metals, and advanced industry. That would broaden prosperity and make the Middle East part of the world’s industrial infrastructure, not only a supplier to it.
For the United States and the wider global economy, the benefits are clear: more diversified processing would reduce exposure to supply disruptions, strengthen access to materials critical to defense and advanced industry, and improve supply-chain resilience. Better market data, greater transparency, and stronger coordination could also improve price discovery, make projects more bankable, and attract private capital.
From energy security to energy-and-mineral security
The Middle East could play a larger role in global mineral and supply-chain security. The region brings together low-cost energy supplies, mineral resources, capital, infrastructure, and geography.
A global minerals partnership could bring together energy producers, major processors such as China, large consumer and technology markets including the United States and Europe, emerging economies, and resource-holding countries across Africa, Latin America, and Asia.
The purpose would be practical: improve market transparency, facilitate investment, and processing partnerships, coordinate policy, and help move projects from concept to execution by linking resources, energy, technology, finance, and demand. It would be an enabling platform, not an operating entity. Governments and companies would still decide where to invest, what to process, and how projects are financed. Shared data and market reporting could improve price discovery, strengthen confidence in supply reliability, and make market-distorting practices easier to identify.
This would be different from the US-initiated Minerals Security Partnership, created among like-minded governments to diversify critical-mineral supply chains. China, despite its central role in global processing, is not part of it. A broader framework could bring processors, consumers, resource holders, and energy producers into the same structure.
It would not remove US-China competition, but it could create a practical space for cooperation where interests overlap. The United States could benefit from better information, a more diversified processing base and another channel for engaging China on mineral-market risks. China could also see value in participating through its role in processing, technology, investment, and demand. Those shared interests could help keep the framework functioning even when broader tensions remain.
Countries with the right mix of energy, infrastructure, capital, and international relationships could help convene it. Saudi Arabia, for example, could be well placed given its position between Asia, Africa, and Europe, its energy and mineral resources, industrial base, and relationships across Western and Asian economies. The Future Minerals Forum already provides a foundation that could be developed into a more formal, member-based structure, while the partnership itself remained global and broadly representative.
Its wider value would be to accelerate new processing capacity, reduce excessive dependence on any one geography, improve market transparency, and strengthen mineral supply-chain resilience.
A reality check
Every era of energy produces its own narratives: peak oil supply, transition and peak demand, independence, electrification, dominance, reshoring, friend-shoring, and hemispheric abundance. Each contains a truth, and each becomes dangerous when it outruns physical and economic reality.
The Middle East crisis is now being perceived not only as a disruption, but increasingly as a condition that could persist. That perception is beginning to generate its own energy narrative—about which regions are safer, where capital should go, and how future supply should be structured. The reality check is that those conclusions can become self-reinforcing before the physical energy system has changed.
If Europe overestimates electrification, Asia substitutes one dependency for another, investors pull back from regional resilience, and the Middle East defends only its hydrocarbon role, the result could be underinvestment, new concentration risks for global energy and minerals security.
The world does not face a choice between the Western Hemisphere and the Middle East, between electrons and molecules, or between energy security and mineral security. A resilient system requires several strong centers: a stronger Western Hemisphere, a resilient and increasingly industrialized Middle East, a more self-reliant Europe, and a diversified Asia. Narratives shape investment, and a distorted energy narrative today can become an energy-security and affordability crisis tomorrow.
The objective is therefore not to preserve the old map or resist the rise of new energy centers, but to build a more resilient one: addition, not replacement; diversification, not concentration; cooperation, not exclusion. For the Middle East, the opportunity is to rewrite its strategic position by putting minerals, processing, and supply-chain security at the center—using more of its energy molecules at home to power AI-driven demand, data centers, and advanced industry, while continuing to serve global energy markets.
Sara Vakhshouri is founder and president of SVB Energy International, a faculty member at Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service, and chair of the Center for Energy Security and Energy Diplomacy at the Institute of World Politics. She is also a senior fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.
stay connected
Sign up for PowerPlay, the Atlantic Council’s bimonthly newsletter keeping you up to date on all facets of the energy transition.
related content
our work
The Global Energy Center develops and promotes pragmatic and nonpartisan policy solutions designed to advance global energy security, drive economic opportunity, and foster a sustainable energy future.
Image: Vessels at the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from Musandam, Oman, October 2, 2026. REUTERS/Stringer/File Photo