Opening the Strait of Hormuz - how has the Iran War shaped the G7’s energy policy?

Summary 

With the US-Iran war and its implications for oil prices dominating international headlines since the outbreak of the conflict at the end of February, and Donald Trump announcing he had secured a peace deal with Iran on the eve of the G7 summit, the resolution of the conflict was rightfully always going to be a significant part of G7 discussions. Yet beyond an agreement that it is important to re-open the Strait of Hormuz, there was a lack of detail on energy policy. This analysis piece explores the impact of the Iran War on G7 policy-making, and argues that the conflict in Iran has derailed previous commitments from the G7 on energy and climate action, and that other meetings of G7 ministers in the lead up to the Evian summit were more effective, as last week arguably focussed more on careful diplomacy to avoid provoking the US president.

What’s the G7’s position in this conflict? 

As well as the military and diplomatic implications of the conflict for the G7 being unique in that a member state was actively involved in the war the summit was there to discuss, the world’s biggest economies were facing slowing growth ahead of the summit in Evian, and the OECD’s latest economic forecast projects that the Iran War will continue to have adverse effects on growth. More than fifty years since the first G7 summit was held in response to the 1973 oil crisis, the impacts of high global energy prices have been felt across the world once again in the lead up to the 2026 meeting. Indeed, finance ministers met in March to discuss energy policy and help for member states, and pledged to take "all necessary measures” to ensure the stability of the energy markets. However, the 15-17 June summit in Evian was the first time that the rest of the G7 leaders had met Trump since he launched his attacks on Iran at the end of February. Although he arrived hailing the success of his recently secured peace deal with Iran, European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen emphasised that, “the priority now is implementation,” and it is still unclear how long this will take.

Does the G7’s statement provide reassurance?

The G7’s joint statement on geopolitical issues did include a call for the re-opening of the Strait of Hormuz, which is crucial for the reduction in energy prices needed to ease the cost of living across the G7 member states and globally. Furthermore, the announcement that Canada has the potential to “deliver significant additional capacity to global markets in coming years” is positive as it will provide a more reliable energy route than the Strait of Hormuz. Canada has significantly increased its natural gas production and exports, with Prime Minister Mark Carney announcing an expansion of the Trans Mountain Oil Pipeline. Furthermore, in the Strait itself, the G7’s statement highlighted the “defensive initiative” led by France and the UK to help resume traffic. 

Beyond this however, the statement seemed to focus more on praising the ‘strong’ leadership of Donald Trump in securing a ‘historic’ deal to prevent a nuclear Iran, than on specific policy commitments. Where more specific commitments on energy were announced, they were as a result of bilateral meetings, rather than a united G7 announcement. For example, Keir Starmer announced a £1.3 billion investment from France and India in clean energy and AI projects in the UK, which aims to create jobs, increase energy security and reduce the price of bills. However, the fact that the G7 did issue a united statement in the first place can be seen as a success, particularly given the stark differences between Trump and the rest of the G7’s views on the Iran war, as well as Trump’s criticisms of other G7 leaders such as Starmer and Meloni, after clashes over support in the conflict and involvement of the Pope. Yet, it is precisely this avoidance of difficult conversations that leads to vague statements, calling into question the effectiveness of the G7. 

Is the G7 on track to meet its energy action promises from a few years ago?

Despite the Clean Energy Economy Action Plan being a key outcome of the 2023 summit, and Chancellor Rachel Reeves calling on the G7 to accelerate the move towards clean energy at a meeting with G7 finance and energy ministers in March, there was no explicit mention of climate change or energy transition in Evian. 

The 2023 action plan committed to “diversifying clean energy supply chains”, yet, this year, instead of discussing moving away from fossil fuels entirely, leaders emphasised the “diversification of energy supply routes” and encouraged oil-importing countries to “establish sufficient and effective oil reserve systems”. This shift in language and focus away from transitioning to different energy sources, towards different ways of bringing oil and gas out of the Persian Gulf, is interesting to note because of the absence of previous language, particularly as the work of previous summits was mentioned in other areas of policy at Evian, for example the joint statement on critical minerals referencing a pledge that had been made last year. Indeed, whilst Canada’s energy capacity expansion was welcomed by the G7, the fact that it is mainly routed in natural gas suggests a lack of commitment to the previous clean energy action plan. 

Conclusion

In theory, the world’s most powerful economies should have the ability to tackle this energy crisis. However, it remains to be seen whether Trump’s peace deal with Iran will hold, and the unpredictability of the US President’s actions mean that the global prices of energy are out of the control of the other G7 leaders. Whilst the G7 can be seen as a success in that Trump did not leave the summit early, as he had done in 2024 and 2025, the fact that the Strait of Hormuz was closed again just three days after the summit concluded demonstrates the difficulties with ‘implementation’ of the peace deal. Whilst the G7 is a useful forum for demonstrating unity among some of the world’s most powerful nations, unity comes at the cost of vague statements to ensure compromise. Indeed, Trump’s joke on the final day of the summit that ‘I'm the boss’ certainly rings true when it comes to setting the agenda, and this precedent will continue at the 2027 summit when the US hosts.