Blocked Strait of Hormuz: Two Scenarios for Agriculture

In a note published on April 20, the Agriculture Strategies think tank analyzes the agricultural and food consequences of the war in the Middle East. Jérémy Denieulle, an expert in geopolitics, and Sandrine Doppler, an analyst specializing in food systems, outline two main trajectories of conflict moderation or military escalation to identify “the future economic tipping points.”

Before the conflict, 35% of urea exports, the most widely used nitrogen fertilizer on the planet, passed through the Strait of Hormuz. However, 40% of the world’s caloric intake relies on staple crops (wheat, rice, corn), which alone consume 45% of nitrogen used globally. A partial blockade of Hormuz constitutes a “direct threat to agricultural yields and the food balance of the most vulnerable countries.”

The shock differs from that caused by the war in Ukraine, as in 2022, Ukraine and Russia were two of the largest global exporters of cereals, immediately impacting wheat and corn prices.

Here, it is not food supply directly affected, but rather energy and fertilizers. The effects on food prices vary, aligning with crop cycles: “for a farmer in the Ganges plain or the Nile Delta, a fertilization impasse in spring would mean a compromised harvest, a weakened food security, and potential socio-political disruptions, both in urban and rural areas.”

Three weeks after the ceasefire concluded following 40 days of combat, diplomatic negotiations remain deadlocked on this 28th of April. Iranian-American negotiations failed again over the weekend despite an Iranian peace proposal rejected by Trump. Hormuz remains paralyzed. Washington says it is still “examining” Iranian proposals to unlock the situation. The Iranian Foreign Minister traveled to St. Petersburg on Monday to seek Putin’s support, while clashes continue between Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah.

Mastered Conflict, Diplomatic Corridor, Logistical Fragmentation

The two trajectories start from the same point: the blockage of Hormuz on February 28. The first scenario assumes a prolonged deadlock: “military hostilities do not lead to total destruction of land-based productive infrastructures, but maintain a permanent state of insecurity in the Gulf waters.”

In the short term (1 to 2 years), this scenario involves a stalemate where Hormuz is under “diplomatic life support.” Several elements support this claim. On the Iranian side, the Islamic regime has not collapsed yet: the “mosaic defense” of the Revolutionary Guards (a decentralized command structure designed to withstand successive decapitations) manages to maintain power and continue its strategy of asymmetric warfare.

On the American side, military escorts announced by Trump in early March to free traffic in the Gulf were deemed “too risky” by the US Navy. The American president also faces a “progressive fracture” within his Maga electoral base, firmly opposed to foreign military operations, as the mid-term elections of November 2026 approach, affecting Washington’s calculations facing Tehran.

War Escalation, Supply Shocks, Price Surge

The second scenario involves military escalation: assuming diplomatic mediations fail and the conflict intensifies in the Strait, which remains completely blocked to navigation.

In the short term, this scenario would lead to a “logistical chaos” and “supply shocks” in hydrocarbons, fertilizers, and cereals. Countries in the region would be the first to be affected: major oil exporters in the Gulf (Qatar, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq) are heavily dependent on Hormuz for their exports, and alternative solutions remain costly and imperfect.

These effects would extend beyond the region: according to a mid-March FAO report, the food consumption of these countries could contract by 17 to 20% from 2026 if the conflict persists.

The consequences would go beyond the region: according to the FAO, the real income of cereal producers worldwide could drop by over 5%, exacerbating food crises and famines in several regions of the world.

Long-term Outlook and Recommendations

In the long term, this scenario could lead to a “systemic dislocation” and a “war ecology,” where fossil energy flows become a central issue in global power struggles.

On the agricultural front, this would accelerate competition for biomass, land conversions to biofuels, and force major economic blocs to relocate ammonia production and transition to carbon-neutral agriculture, condemning the most fragile countries to face high food prices and strong budgetary pressure in the long term.