After a month of war, on Wednesday, April 1, President Donald tramp in his address, he tried to explain to the American public what they are for United States came into conflict with Iran. Bearing in mind the results of the public opinion survey conducted by CNN/SSRS, according to which almost two-thirds of respondents disapprove of this war and believe that the president does not have a clear plan for managing the situation, it seems that this goal was difficult to achieve. According to a poll conducted by Reuters/IPSOS at the end of March, a significant majority of Americans believe that a conflict with Iran will have a negative impact on their personal financial situation. This further complicates the position of the current US administration, and especially the candidates of the Republican Party before the elections for the House of Representatives and a third of the Senate that follow in November this year.
In this context, it is particularly interesting to ask what the impact of US military operations in Iran is on the US economy now and what it will be in the near future. At the moment, the consequences of this conflict are certainly more visible on the world economy than on the economy of the United States. Several doubts make it difficult to predict the possible outcomes - first of all, the length of the war and, directly related to it, the effect of closing the Strait of Hormuz, but also the consequences of the destruction caused by the warring parties and their allies in the Gulf during the conflict to the opponent's oil and natural gas production capacities. Attacks on gas and oil infrastructure, such as Israel's strike on South Pars, Iran's largest natural gas field, or Iran's strike on Ras Lafan, the liquefied petroleum gas complex in Qatar, further exacerbate the existing situation. In addition to reducing the future supply of gas and oil, they also lead to prolonged shortages because the destroyed capacities cannot be quickly restored.
Currently, the most significant negative effects of the conflict in Iran are directly related to the increase in oil and natural gas prices at the global level. The consequences of this will inevitably be felt by end consumers, households, and companies due to the increase in business costs. As a consequence of the increase in oil prices, the expected increase in prices of, say, groceries and utilities would disproportionately affect low-income households.
ORMUS: STRICTLY CONTROLLED PASSAGE
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is significant because this waterway is the link between the Persian Gulf and the open sea. Bearing in mind that in peacetime about 20% of the world's oil and natural gas production passes through the strait, as well as about 20-30% of the fertilizer necessary for food production, the importance of the safe passage of this sea route cannot be overemphasized. Countries in the region export almost all of their oil through the Strait of Hormuz, although Saudi Arabia and, to a lesser extent, the United Arab Emirates and Iran have other options for transporting oil, such as pipelines that bypass Hormuz. However, this is a very limited alternative. In addition, the fact that other important goods important in the semiconductor production process such as aluminum, sulfur, sulfuric acid and helium are produced in the Middle East region should not be overlooked. In response to the US-Israeli airstrikes, representatives of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard decided to close the waterway of obvious global importance, warning all interested actors from the US, Israel, Europe and other countries, their allies, that their vessels will be targeted if they try to pass through Hormuz. Although a small number of Iranian ships, as well as tankers sailing under the Chinese flag or vessels that have received permission from the Iranian authorities (mostly with significant compensation, usually in Chinese currency) still pass through this waterway, passage through the strait does not effectively work.
TRAPPED RESOURCES AND FEAR OF A REPEAT OF THE ENERGY CRISIS
The very limited use of Hormuz has already produced significant negative effects in a large number of countries, with the real possibility of further escalation followed by shortages and price increases of various products. For now, the negative consequences are largely determined by the dependence of other countries on the import of oil and natural gas from this region, according to the principle that the greater the dependence, the more severe the consequences. Another indicator of the crisis is the length of the journey that oil-laden ships take from ports in the Persian Gulf to their final destinations. The first to be hit are the Asian countries to which almost 90% of the oil and natural gas passing through Hormuz is exported, and whose governments have already begun to take various protective measures: from limiting the increase in the price of gasoline, reducing excise duties on fuel, banning the export of oil and its derivatives, switching to a work-from-home regime, closing schools and other public institutions, and even declaring an emergency energy situation. Due to the dependence on the import of crude oil from the Middle Eastern countries, Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines, otherwise important American allies in the Asia-Pacific region, are particularly at risk. China finds itself in a somewhat contradictory position. On the one hand, it seeks to contribute to the maintenance of Iran, its geopolitical ally and the country from which it buys 90% of its oil production, and to the interest of keeping this passage open, on the other. Another unexpected problem facing, for example, agricultural exporters from Asia, as well as South America, is the shortage of refrigerated shipping containers, a large amount of which has been trapped in the Middle East region.
The consequences of the conflict and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz cannot bypass the European continent either. Faced with the second energy shock in four years, European countries, and especially members of the European Union, are in a sensitive position. The fact is that delaying the end of the war in the Middle East limits their access to alternatives to Russian gas and potentially directs them to purchase more expensive natural gas from the US or West Africa. As the governments of the affected countries try to mitigate the negative effects on the population and domestic companies through price restrictions on oil and oil products, subsidies or tax breaks, there is a risk of a repeat of the energy crisis of 2022, which led to inflation and large budget deficits.
UNCERTAINTY GROWS IN THE AMERICAN ECONOMY
A very important question is what are the economic effects of the war in Iran for the US, bearing in mind that this country is one of the belligerents and an increasingly frequent direct actor in other regional conflicts. Although the energy crisis caused by the war with Iran would affect the US less than other industrialized economies, American consumers would certainly suffer the consequences of increased oil, gas and food prices. The war with Iran contributed to the growth of uncertainty in the American economy, already shaken by trade disputes with other countries, threatening inflation and doubts about the intentions of the American administration related to limiting the independence of the American central bank - the Federal Reserve System.
The United States of America entered the war with Iran as a significant exporter of oil, which greatly facilitates its position compared to most other countries. In the National Security Strategy of the USA, adopted in November 2025, it is pointed out that for decades the United States prioritized the Middle East over other regions due to the wealth of energy that made this area "the main arena of superpower competition". In the meantime, relations have changed significantly, the US has become a net exporter of energy, and "superpower competition has given way to great power competition in which the United States maintains the most enviable position." Relatively unusual for strategic documents, credit for this undoubted success was attributed solely to President Trump, who, according to the strategy itself, managed to restore American relations with the countries of the region, both with the Arab states and with Israel.
Although the price of a gallon of gasoline has risen by one dollar since the beginning of the conflict, to just over four dollars, and diesel to about $5,5, the consequences of the war in the Middle East for the United States so far have been limited. In addition to rising prices and possible shortages of nitrogen fertilizers and helium, the immediate effects of the conflict are related to the energy crisis and the potential reduction of purchasing power in the countries that are the most important trading partners of the US. In that case, the demand for American products would be reduced, in line with the declining performance of the partner economies. Rising diesel prices and the expected increase in fertilizer prices would have a particularly negative impact on American agricultural producers, otherwise overwhelmingly supporters of President Trump and the Republican Party. Transport prices would also increase, which would also affect the growth of other prices. Air traffic would be particularly affected due to more expensive fuel, which would increase the cost of travel as well as delivery costs. Another negative effect is the rise in interest rates on mortgage loans, present since the beginning of the war with Iran, which negatively affects real estate buyers. The prolongation of the conflict and the fear of inflation may prevent the authorities in the Federal Reserve System from continuing with the expected reduction of interest rates or direct them to think about their possible increase, which would increase the cost of borrowing in the US.
On the other hand, there are economic entities that would not be exposed to the negative consequences of this crisis. US producers of liquefied natural gas, according to available estimates, could earn about 60 billion dollars as beneficiaries of high prices on the market. As President Trump himself wrote on March 12, in part of a post on the Truth Social network: "The United States is by far the largest producer of oil in the world, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money."
Attempts to assess the economic consequences of the conflict with Iran are usually based on the analysis of the length of its duration and the probability of escalation, as well as their interactions with existing vulnerabilities such as the effects of tariffs, the inflation rate and the weakening of consumer sentiment. In the event of a prolonged war in Iran followed by a dramatic increase in the price of oil, almost all sources predict a significant slowdown in the growth rate as well as a possible recession in the US. It is in this key that one should understand the bids of American officials, and above all President Trump, about the imminent end of the conflict. An additional problem for the current administration is the well-founded assumption that the increased dissatisfaction of American voters, due to even the very limited economic consequences of the war in Iran, can reduce the Republicans' chances of winning the November elections for the House of Representatives or for retaining control of the Senate, which would make President Trump's position quite difficult for the rest of his term.
As for US foreign policy relations, even if it ends very quickly, the war with Iran contributed to the acceleration of some strategic changes, such as the desire to reduce the so-called dependence on middle powers in relation to America. Simply, the fact that the United States is ready to unilaterally produce devastating consequences for other countries, without taking into account their basic national interests, can have long-term negative effects on the future of American alliances.
The author is an associate professor at the University of Belgrade, FPN
