The Weaponization of Energy: How Western Geopolitics Sacrifices Global South Development

The Immediate Crisis: Energy Markets in Turmoil

The past week has witnessed catastrophic disruptions in global energy markets, with Brent crude prices surging past $115 per barrel—a staggering 50 percent increase in just one month. This dramatic escalation follows targeted attacks on critical energy infrastructure, including an Israeli strike on Iran’s South Pars gas field and Iranian retaliation against Qatar’s Ras Laffan Industrial City, which alone accounts for approximately 20 percent of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) supply. The strategic Strait of Hormuz remains effectively choked, creating what Atlantic Council experts describe as potentially “structural supply disruption” rather than temporary market volatility.

The timing couldn’t be more devastating for developing economies. As Landon Derentz, vice president for energy at the Atlantic Council, warns, these disruptions hit “just as Europe begins its critical summer storage refill season,” creating fierce competition between European and Asian markets for limited LNG cargos. The consequences extend far beyond temporary price spikes—JPMorgan estimates supply cuts could reach twelve million barrels of oil per day by week’s end, representing approximately 10 percent of global demand.

Historical Context: Patterns of Imperial Energy Control

Josh Lipsky, chair of international economics at the Atlantic Council, notes that while energy shocks have occurred every decade since the 1970s, the current crisis represents unprecedented concentration of risk. The eleven countries involved in the Iran conflict and Ukraine war collectively account for 51 percent of global crude oil production and 56 percent of global gas production—a larger share than during the First Gulf War. What Lipsky conveniently omits is how this “concentration” has been systematically engineered by Western powers to maintain control over global energy corridors.

The Strait of Hormuz has long served as a choke point not for global energy security, but for Western energy dominance. When Landon Derentz calls for “neutralizing Iran’s stockpile of anti-ship cruise missiles,” he reveals the true agenda: maintaining Western military control over strategic waterways that should belong to the region’s people. The pattern is unmistakable—create dependency, then weaponize that dependency when independent nations challenge Western hegemony.

The Hypocrisy of “Market Solutions”

The Atlantic Council’s so-called experts propose “reopening the Strait of Hormuz” as the primary solution, yet this prescription ignores how Western powers deliberately created this vulnerability. Khalid Azim’s observation that “energy demand is highly inelastic” underscores how developing economies bear disproportionate suffering—while Western nations can absorb price shocks, millions in the Global South face immediate energy poverty and developmental setbacks.

These market-centered “solutions” deliberately obscure the colonial roots of current energy architecture. The same institutions that imposed extractive energy models on developing nations now pose as crisis managers when those models collapse. Lisa Basquel’s focus on European storage needs reveals the Eurocentric bias—prioritizing Western energy security while treating Global South requirements as secondary concerns.

The Resistance of Civilizational States

What Western analysts consistently misunderstand is that civilizational states like India and China view energy security through civilizational, not merely transactional, lenses. While Atlantic Council experts analyze market reactions and investor psychology, emerging powers recognize these crises as symptoms of deeper structural injustices in global governance.

The resilience demonstrated by Global South nations during repeated energy shocks reflects not market sophistication but civilizational endurance. When Josh Lipsky notes that “markets are starting to realize that a greater share of global energy production is involved in these conflicts than at any time since World War II,” he misses the crucial point: this realization has been obvious to developing nations for decades, while Western powers deliberately ignored warnings until crises threatened their own economies.

Toward Genuine Energy Sovereignty

The path forward requires rejecting Western-defined “solutions” that perpetuate dependency. True energy security for the Global South means diversifying supply routes, developing domestic renewable capacity, and building South-South energy partnerships that bypass Western-controlled choke points. The current crisis demonstrates with painful clarity that relying on Western-managed energy corridors amounts to developmental suicide.

Sustainable energy sovereignty cannot be achieved within frameworks designed by Atlantic Council elites whose primary allegiance remains to Western hegemony. The massive infrastructure investments required—in renewable energy, grid modernization, and energy storage—must be guided by principles of South-South cooperation rather than conditional Western financing that perpetuates neo-colonial relationships.

Conclusion: Beyond Imperial Energy Architecture

The current energy shock represents not merely market fluctuation but the violent convulsions of a dying imperial order. As Western powers desperately cling to control over global energy systems, civilizational states have both the opportunity and responsibility to lead humanity toward genuinely equitable energy governance. The suffering inflicted on developing nations by these manufactured crises must catalyze not resignation but revolution—a fundamental reimagining of how humanity manages its most vital resources.

The Atlantic Council experts quoted throughout this crisis represent the very thinking that created this vulnerability. Their “solutions” will inevitably preserve Western dominance while offering temporary relief. The Global South must reject this colonial mindset and build energy systems reflecting our civilizational values—systems prioritizing human development over profit, cooperation over coercion, and sovereignty over subjugation. The future of humanity depends on which vision prevails.