ERBIL, Kurdistan Region - While the world’s attention remains fixed on the oil market, a more subtle threat is emerging: the disruption of the global food supply. On March 7, 2026, the KSL Hengyang became the last vessel to transit the Strait of Hormuz before a maritime blockade effectively severed one of the world’s most vital economic arteries. The strait is no longer merely an energy corridor; it has become a chokepoint for food.
Approximately one-third of all fertilizer traded globally passes through this narrow passage. As of mid-March, the agricultural sector faces what analysts describe as a “Tier-1 supply chain emergency,” as inputs required to feed nearly half the world’s population become either prohibitively expensive or physically unavailable.
The energy-fertilizer nexus
The crisis is rooted in the fundamental chemistry of modern farming. Nitrogen fertilizer, which supports the dietary needs of an estimated 3.5 billion people, is produced through the Haber-Bosch process, which relies heavily on natural gas. Energy costs account for roughly 70 percent of the production cost of nitrogen-based fertilizers.
Persian Gulf states - Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Iran - have leveraged their low-cost gas reserves to become major global producers of urea and ammonia. These products are essential for high-yield farming in the United States, Brazil, India, and Southeast Asia. With the Strait of Hormuz closed since February 28, the primary export route for these chemicals has been cut off.
The impact was immediate. Global urea prices surged 26 percent in less than two weeks, rising from $465 per metric ton to $585.
Analysis of duration scenarios
The severity of the crisis depends largely on how long the closure continues. Analysts have outlined three potential scenarios.
1. The short shock (1 month): Considered “painful but survivable,” with a 30 percent probability. Urea prices would stabilize between $620 and $720 per metric ton. While the 2026 harvest would likely fall below expectations, the global food system would remain intact.
2. The sustained crisis (3 months): The most likely scenario, with a 45 percent probability. A 90-day closure would deplete global urea reserves. The timing is particularly difficult, as March and April represent the critical spring planting window for the Northern Hemisphere. Farmers in the United States and Europe, already facing depleted reserves, would have to make planting decisions without sufficient fertilizer.
3. The catastrophic scenario (6 months): With a 25 percent probability, this scenario could trigger a humanitarian disaster. Fertilizer prices could exceed $1,800 per metric ton, effectively putting the “Haber-Bosch revolution into reverse.” Yield declines of 25 to 40 percent for nitrogen-intensive crops such as corn could follow. Analysts estimate that more than 100 million people could face a crisis comparable to the effects of “weapons of mass destruction.”
Regional impacts: who is hit first?
The geography of the crisis means some countries will be affected immediately.
India: With a population of 1.4 billion, the country relies heavily on a monsoon planting cycle that peaks in April and May. India’s largest fertilizer producer, IFFCO, has already curtailed output after its supplier, Qatar, suspended deliveries.
Brazil: Often described as the world’s agricultural export engine, Brazil imports about 85 percent of its fertilizer. Shortages could trigger a global domino effect on soy and cooking oil prices.
United States: Farmers are seeing the “purchasing power” of their crops decline. In December, one ton of urea cost the equivalent of 75 bushels of corn; by March 2026, it required 126 bushels.
The Gulf states: Ironically, the region’s producers are also vulnerable. Countries such as Qatar and the UAE import 80 to 90 percent of their food by sea through the same strait that is now closed.
The lagging bill
A key misconception about the crisis concerns its timing. While oil prices respond immediately to supply disruptions, fertilizer shocks have a “deceptive lag.” The process, from rising input costs to reduced fertilizer use and lower crop yields, can take six to eighteen months to fully unfold.
This means the peak impact on food prices may not appear until late 2026 or early 2027.
As Joseph Glauber of IFPRI noted on March 12: “The bigger impact on consumer prices will not just be the impact on agricultural commodities - it is the fact that energy is a large portion of the total retail food bill. And that wave of inflation is already baked in. It just has not arrived yet.”
Traditional safety nets are already under strain. Russia and China cannot easily fill the supply gap due to sanctions and domestic restrictions, while Egypt lacks spare production capacity. Although the crisis may accelerate interest in alternatives such as “green ammonia,” these innovations will provide little short-term relief to families already facing rising food costs.
As Professor Chris Barrett observed, an import-dependent farmer “faces a cost shock on every single dimension at once. There are no good options available to them.”
The broader lesson of the 2026 crisis may be simple. “The oil shock will be resolved. Oil always is. The food shock will outlast it - measured not in weeks, but in harvests.”