I am not part of this war, but it will exacerbate poverty, as a matter of course.

 I am not part of this war; nor have wanted an unnecessary war.

However, though I cleanse my eyes from Zionism bias on account of my faith — which never called for this war, the violence in the Middle East will still inevitably rise the prices of fuel. There's not even an accommodation of thought about fuel cost subsidy, to ameliorate potential economic set back, as has been in the past. Instead, major operational cost-cutting and reduction of office hours to four days, for the government.

I will walk, as I have walked, anyway.

But the value chain effects of the cost will impact on food and goods that are transported by middle businesspersons from sources to intended markets. The prices of basic commodities are expected to skyrocket, too.

The war, which I am not part of, will exacerbate my poverty of course.

From the perspective of energy market fundamentals, any escalation of conflict in the Middle East that threatens maritime transit through the Strait of Hormuz would carry immediate and material consequences for global oil supply and exacerbate our poverty.

This narrow waterway remains one of the most critical arteries of the international energy system, facilitating the daily passage of a significant share of crude exports from major producers including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. Any sustained disruption—whether through direct hostilities, shipping risks, or precautionary reductions in tanker traffic—would likely tighten global supply conditions and place upward pressure on benchmark crude prices. Under such circumstances, market expectations could rapidly reprice oil toward levels exceeding $100 per barrel, particularly if inventories tighten and alternative supply routes prove insufficient to offset the disruption.

For energy-importing economies such as the Philippines, the transmission mechanism from global crude markets to domestic pump prices tends to be swift. As refined petroleum products in Southeast Asia are largely priced against international benchmarks, a sustained increase in crude prices would translate into higher gasoline and diesel costs within weeks. Historically, such movements generate secondary effects across transport, logistics, and agricultural supply chains, contributing to broader inflationary pressures. While strategic inventories and commercial stockholding requirements can mitigate the risk of physical shortages in the short term, they do not insulate domestic markets from price volatility. Consequently, prudent economic management in such a scenario would emphasize demand moderation, efficiency in fuel consumption, and careful fiscal and monetary coordination to manage the inflationary spillovers associated with elevated global energy prices.

A sustained war in the Middle East could also transmit deeper financial shocks to the Philippines through labor migration and currency flows. The region hosts millions of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs), particularly in Gulf economies such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Kuwait. These workers form a critical pillar of the Philippine economy because their remittances—sent regularly to families at home—constitute a major source of foreign currency and domestic consumption. In normal conditions, these remittance flows help stabilize the Philippine peso and support household spending across the country.

First, security risks and economic uncertainty may force companies to scale down operations or delay infrastructure and service projects where many migrant workers are employed. Evacuations, contract suspensions, or job losses among OFWs would directly reduce remittance inflows. Second, even if workers remain employed, financial institutions and logistics networks involved in cross-border payments may face temporary disruptions if regional tensions escalate. The cumulative result would be a slowdown in the steady stream of dollar inflows that normally enters the Philippine banking system.

Such a decline in remittances would have macroeconomic consequences beyond household income. Remittances are among the largest contributors to the Philippines’ foreign exchange reserves and are a key factor supporting the stability of the Philippine peso. If these inflows weaken while the country simultaneously faces higher import costs due to rising oil prices, the balance of payments could come under pressure. The peso would likely depreciate as demand for foreign currency rises to pay for more expensive fuel imports while fewer dollars enter the economy through remittances.

For this reason, economists often view the remittance channel as a potentially larger systemic risk than the fuel price shock itself. Higher fuel prices raise costs and inflation, but a disruption in remittance flows strikes at the financial lifeline of millions of households and weakens the country’s external stability. In such a scenario, the combined pressures of elevated energy costs, reduced foreign exchange inflows, and currency depreciation could produce a more complex economic challenge than energy markets alone would suggest.