“Called It!” – Iran War turning Climate Change into a “national security emergency”

Last month, within hours of the launch of “Operation Epic Fury”, I was writing that this war would loop back around to climate change…

Extending from that, almost certainly, will be climate change/renewable energy narrative arguing that the price of oil is “too volatile” and our reliance on fossil fuels is “causing death and destruction” and that climate change is an “international security emergency”.

It was, without undue immodesty, a fairly safe bet, but the press wasted no time in proving it correct.

And now the Secretary General of the United Nations is reinforcing the point:

In this age of war our addiction to fossil fuels is destabilizing the climate, global economy & global security.

Now more than ever, we must accelerate a just transition to renewable energy.

Renewables deliver climate security, energy security & national security. pic.twitter.com/TrphJ2Zwa2

— António Guterres (@antonioguterres) March 23, 2026

The pro-renewable agenda was clear immediately, with thousands of terribly unoriginal people saying “there’s no solar panels stuck in the strait of hormuz”, or variations on that theme.

We got dozens of headlines blaming the war directly on oil and our “addiction” to fossil fuels. Funnily enough, what was subtext in 2003 is now overt in 2026.

But there’s more to it than just pushing renewables, the agenda is to define the war in Iran as a “climate change war”, a conflict that was somehow inevitable because of our over-reliance on fossil fuels and – more disparately – the increasingly unstable climate making people desperate.

And, having established that climate change is directly responsible for starting wars, it’s only a short step to directly tie “climate change” to “national security”.

As I wrote on Twitter/X, this is much more than just semantics. Just like linking “climate change” with “pandemics” makes it a public health issue, linking it with war makes it a national security issue. The propaganda of word association and definitions has legislative implications.

So the discourse continues to force the association.

The World Economic Forum published a short video a couple of days ago titled “How climate change is becoming a global security issue”.

Greenpeace is publishing articles arguing the switch to renewables should “be understood as a security and resilience strategy”.

George Monbiot is writing in the Guardian that “The two emergencies – political and environmental – are one. We need to put ourselves on an anti-war footing with the urgency that nations have traditionally put themselves on war footings: an emergency programme to get fossil fuels out of our lives.”

A “war footing” being needed to push through the “security strategy” of urgently switching to “green” energy would result in vast amounts of “emergency funding” transferred from public to private hands.

Elsewhere, academics are publishing papers predicting “climate wars”, where they reference the changing climate as a “force multiplier” driving water shortages and mass migration. These issues may cause outbreaks of violence; therefore, the argument goes, climate change is starting wars.

Australian governmental reports are branding climate disinformation a “national security threat”.

If climate change is a national security issue, then does climate “denial”, become sedition? Or treason? Does that require legal punishment? Perhaps censorship? Rationing worked in World War II, will it work in World War Climate as well?

In the end, once climate change is a threat to national – or international – security, then governments can invoke emergency war powers in order to deal with it. And they will.

Thanks for reading...

You can help us keep doing what we do. Every little helps and is hugely appreciated.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.