Wars have battlefields, but their economic frontiers extend far beyond them. Six months after the United States of America (USA) and Israel launched military attacks against Iran in late February 2026, many South Africans who have never been near the Strait of Hormuz are paying part of the price at the petrol station, taxi ranks, supermarkets, farms, and, increasingly, through weaker economic growth, as Statistics South Africa’s (Stats SA) latest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) statistical release indicated on 8 September 2026.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has described the disruption unleashed by the conflict as the largest oil-supply disruption in history. Before the war, roughly 20 million barrels of crude and petroleum products passed through the Strait of Hormuz each day. Traffic subsequently fell dramatically, while Gulf producers cut production as storage constraints mounted. In March 2026, IEA countries responded with an unprecedented release of 400 million barrels from emergency stocks. Nonetheless, the energy vulnerability remains. In August 2026, the IEA forecast global oil demand would decline by 1,6 million barrels per day in 2026 as the disruption and high prices suppress consumption.
And the danger has returned sharply. Brent crude breached USD 100 a barrel again on 9 September following renewed military escalation, compared with prices in the mid-US 60s immediately before the war. For South Africa, the cascading effects of the war exposes deeper structural vulnerabilities in the country’s economy.
An imported shock becomes a domestic cost-of-living crisis
South Africa is a net importer of crude oil and petroleum products. Consequently, an external supply shock is transmitted rapidly through the domestic fuel-price systems. Oil becomes more expensive, geopolitical risk can weaken the rand, landed fuel costs rise, and the shock then travels through a heavily road-dependent economy.
Approximately 69% of South African freight moves by road, recently estimated by The Presidency. Thus, fuel is not the only thing that households buy directly, but it is embedded in the price of moving food, manufactured goods, agricultural inputs, and workers around the economy.
The inflation data reveal this transmission starkly. Headline inflation reached 5,0% in June 2026, up from 4,5% in May 2026. Transport inflation reached 12,7%, while fuel prices were 34,3% higher than a year earlier. Diesel had risen 50,8% and petrol 31,7%, leading to, in part, minibus-taxi fares increasing by 11,5% in June 2026 alone.
This distributional dimension is crucial. A fuel shock is formally a price shock but socially it operates like a regressive tax. A low-income worker commuting from a township or peripheral settlement to central economic activities struggles to readily substitute away from transport. Similarly, a small farmer remains locked into using diesel or fertiliser to run their business. Low-income households, especially those headed by women, are unable to absorb higher food prices by drawing down substantial savings.
This is why interpreting the shock primarily through headline inflation misses its political economy and socioeconomic impacts. The burden falls disproportionately on households, especially African women, already facing chronically high unemployment, inequality, and soaring costs of living.
The growth shock has now arrived
When the war began, a mainstream narrative that South Africa was emerging from a prolonged period of economic weakness had taken form. Expectedly, that fragile recovery has now suffered another setback.
Stats SA reported this week that GDP contracted by 0,2% in the second quarter of 2026, ending six consecutive quarters of weak expansion. Manufacturing contracted by 1,8%, trade by 1,9%, and mining by 3%. Fixed investment declined by 0.2% as well for a second consecutive quarter. The war cannot explain every weakness in this economy.
South Africa entered the crisis carrying longstanding structural problems of declining investment, rising and stubbornly high levels of unemployment, deindustrialisation, and constraints in network industries. This remains South Africa’s precise problem in that external shocks strike an economy whose buffers are already thin, and in a global economy of constant shocks, it is a matter of time that the thin strands holding it all together begin to fray.
For instance, the agricultural sector illustrates the danger quite clearly. The conflict has simultaneously increased fuel and fertiliser costs and disrupted access to important Middle Eastern export markets. Government itself has recognised the threat to small farmers and has relied on programmes such as Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme in South Africa (CASP) and Ilima/Letsema to subsidise fertiliser, seed, and other inputs.
Thus, the oil shock can become a food-price shock, an agricultural-income shock, and eventually an employment and growth shock, all against the backdrop of the impending potential of a super El-Nino during 2026/7.
South Africa should build economic resilience
While the National Treasury and the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources initially reduced the general fuel levy by R3 per litre, the reduction was temporary and does not address energy sovereignty. The intervention was extended and differentiated for petrol and diesel, ultimately costing an estimated R17.2 billion in foregone revenue between April and June 2026.
Additionally, Cabinet established an inter-ministerial task team spanning Finance, Mineral and Petroleum Resources, Trade and Industry, Agriculture, Transport, Energy and DIRCO, and called for a coordinated SADC response on fuel and fertiliser security. These interventions were necessary; however, they reveal structural weakness in South Africa's approach to economic resilience.
The fuel-levy reduction cushions the price of vulnerability without fundamentally reducing the vulnerability itself. Indeed, Treasury deliberately designed the intervention to remain revenue-neutral within the existing fiscal framework. This limits its redistributive ambition precisely when an external shock is redistributing income away from fuel-intensive households and productive sectors.
Therefore, South Africa needs to move from emergency cushioning and temporary measures towards full economic policy coordination to achieve economic resilience and sovereignty.
That means rebuilding credible strategic fuel reserves; accelerating the transition of freight from road to rail; reducing petroleum dependence through sustainably electrified public transport and renewable energy; developing regional refining and storage capacity; diversifying sources of fertiliser whilst building African fertiliser-production capabilities, and establishing automatic, targeted support mechanisms for public transport, small farmers and vulnerable households when international energy prices breach defined thresholds.
In this regard, every rand invested in reducing structural dependence on imported fossil fuels is simultaneously climate policy, sustainable industrial policy, and resilient geopolitical insurance.
Monetary policy must guard against turning an oil shock into a demand shock
The Reserve Bank correctly recognises that the conflict has interrupted global attempts to stabilise inflation. Its April 2026 Monetary Policy Review warned that oil, gas and fertiliser prices had risen sharply and that rate reductions might need to be delayed. But monetary policy must distinguish carefully between inflation generated by excessive domestic demand and inflation imported through geopolitical disruption. Higher interest rates are unlikely to aid in the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, produce fertiliser or lower international oil prices.
If monetary tightening suppresses investment, household consumption, and employment in response to an externally generated supply shock, South Africa risks transforming imported inflation into domestically generated stagnation. That would be particularly damaging now that GDP has already contracted.
The appropriate response must be coordinated rather than institutionally fragmented: targeted fiscal protection, energy and food-security interventions, accelerated sustainable industrial policy formulation and persuasion, strategic trade diplomacy and monetary policy that prevents second-round inflation without unnecessarily sacrificing employment and investment.
Economic diplomacy must become economic resilience
South Africa requires economic diplomacy to become more closely connected to domestic development strategy. South Africa’s call for de-escalation should not be separate from its economic interests. Restoring secure navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, defending multilateral mechanisms for resolving disputes, strengthening African energy and food systems, and expanding South-South economic cooperation are simultaneously foreign-policy and developmental objectives worth pursuing, especially during the periods of great uncertainty.
The US-Israel war on Iran yet again demonstrated how profoundly unequal the global distribution of geopolitical risk remains and the burden of the economic impact it presents, especially for developing countries. Powerful states make strategic calculations; energy markets reprice those calculations globally; and poorer oil-importing countries absorb costs they played no role in creating.
For South Africa, the question should be larger than how to survive the next oil-price spike. It should rather be how strategically we use this crisis to construct an economy in which the price of commuting to work, producing food, and creating jobs is less hostage to wars over which South Africans have no control.
Comments