The global economy is once again being drawn into a familiar cycle—one that feels heavier each time it returns. This time, the epicenter of the crisis lies in the Middle East, yet its impact is unmistakably global. Rising tensions around the Strait of Hormuz have intensified concerns over energy supply, pushing Brent crude prices from $70 to above $100 per barrel in a short period.
Is this merely an issue for energy markets? Certainly not. It directly translates into the rising cost of living.
Energy prices function as the nervous system of the modern economy. When fuel costs increase, the impact extends far beyond vehicle owners. From food transportation to industrial production, from electricity costs to household heating, every component rises in a chain reaction. In effect, every $10 increase in oil prices silently erodes the budgets of millions of households.
What makes the current situation distinct is not only the price surge itself, but the fact that it is driven by geopolitical uncertainty.
Market actors are no longer positioning themselves based solely on supply and demand. Instead, they are factoring in the duration, scope, and potential escalation of conflict. This dynamic pushes prices away from rational benchmarks, making them more volatile and less predictable.
At this point, the role of the state is once again being debated. While free-market mechanisms are expected to self-correct, crisis moments repeatedly demonstrate that these mechanisms often fail to protect broader segments of society. In this context, two distinct intervention models emerging from Ankara and Brussels reflect not only economic strategies but also an ideological divergence.
Ankara’s Approach: Buying Time Through Tax Relief
The Equalization Mechanism reintroduced by Türkiye is, in essence, a strategy to buy time. By reducing fuel excise taxes, the state absorbs a significant portion of price increases.
In the short term, this is a highly effective tool. Limiting increases in a key inflation driver helps contain broader price pressures across the economy.
Another important effect of this system lies in expectation management. In economics, expectations can be as influential as realities. The perception that fuel prices are under control may soften pricing behavior among both producers and consumers.
However, the sustainability of this model remains questionable. Every tax revenue forgone by the state creates a gap in the budget. The critical question then becomes how this gap will be filled: through increased borrowing, new taxes, or cuts in public spending? Each option carries its own economic and political cost.
More importantly, such measures address the symptoms rather than the root cause. As long as oil prices remain elevated, maintaining this burden on public finances will become increasingly difficult.
Europe’s Response: Targeting the Winners of the Crisis
Across Europe, a different reflex is emerging—placing the cost of the crisis on its beneficiaries. From Italy to Germany, from Spain to Austria, a broad coalition is advocating for the taxation of extraordinary profits earned by energy companies.
The underlying idea is straightforward: if a company generates excessive profits not through efficiency or innovation, but due to an external crisis, those gains can be redistributed socially. This model, often referred to as a “solidarity tax,” is built on precisely this logic.
Similar measures implemented during the 2022 energy crisis generated billions of euros across Europe. Now, the objective is to establish a more comprehensive framework—extending beyond domestic activities to include the global earnings of multinational corporations.
The strength of this model lies in its ability to avoid direct pressure on public finances. However, it is not without risks. Energy companies may reconsider long-term investment decisions. In particular, concerns remain over whether such taxation could deter investments in renewable energy.
The Hidden Risk: Second-Wave Inflation
One of the most dangerous aspects of energy crises is their delayed impact. The first wave is typically visible in fuel and electricity prices. The real threat, however, emerges months later in the form of “second-wave inflation.”
As production costs rise, these increases are gradually passed on to retail prices. Delayed price hikes begin to appear across sectors such as food, textiles, logistics, and services.
This complicates the task of central banks. Monetary tightening may reduce demand, but it has limited effectiveness against supply-driven inflation. In this sense, an energy crisis is not merely a cost issue—it also creates a policy deadlock.
Geopolitical Reality: Energy as a Strategic Weapon
At this stage, energy has ceased to be a commodity in the traditional sense. It has become a clear geopolitical instrument.
Supply disruptions, threats to transport routes, and political decisions by producer countries have become the primary drivers of pricing.
Critical chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz are no longer just trade corridors—they are central to global economic stability. Even minor disruptions in these passages can trigger significant market volatility.
This reality elevates energy security into a matter of national security. The acceleration of renewable energy investments is therefore driven not only by environmental concerns, but also by strategic necessity.
Conclusion: The New Normal—More Intervention
The emerging picture is clear. States can no longer remain passive in times of crisis. Whether through tax reductions or direct intervention in corporate profits, public authorities are becoming more actively involved in markets.
While Türkiye’s approach provides short-term relief, Europe’s model aims at structural redistribution. Both approaches carry advantages and risks. Yet they share a common acknowledgment: the classical free-market model proves insufficient in times of crisis.
In the period ahead, such interventions are likely to become the norm rather than the exception. Energy crises are no longer temporary fluctuations—they are a structural feature of the new global order.
And perhaps the most critical question remains, as always, a familiar one:
Who will ultimately bear the cost?
If the answer continues to be “the citizen,” the issue will no longer remain purely economic. Social balances will deteriorate, income inequality will deepen, and political consequences will become inevitable.
In short, energy prices will continue to be determined not only at the pump, but at the very center of politics.
8 April 2026