Iran Conflict Threatens Oil Supply Chains
March 22, 20268 min readDeep Dive
Fazen Markets Research
AI-Enhanced Analysis
IranoilStrait of Hormuzgeopoliticscommodities
Financial markets entered a heightened risk regime following the escalation of hostilities involving Iran, with rapid repricing across oil, shipping and regional credit spreads. On 22 March 2026 The Guardian reported early market assessments and fund-manager commentary that described the event as a potential long-term shock rather than a transient flare-up (The Guardian, 22 March 2026). The most immediate transmission channel is oil: the Strait of Hormuz carries roughly 21 million barrels per day (mb/d) of seaborne crude and oil products, a figure cited by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) in its 2024–25 reviews. Investors and corporates are now recalculating trade routes, insurance costs and inventories against a backdrop where spot and futures curves can reprice by double-digit percentages in days if chokepoints are threatened.
Market participants are not only pricing immediate supply disruption; they are also attempting to quantify second-order effects on inflation, central-bank policy and growth. Historical episodes — for example the 1990 Gulf War premium and the 2019 tanker incidents — show that supply scares can lift Brent crude by 15–30% in weeks and embed higher risk premia in forward curves for months. That dynamic matters for policy: a persistent $10–15/bbl increase in Brent sustained for three quarters has historically subtracted tenths of percentage points from advanced economy GDP growth and can push headline CPI up by several tenths, based on IMF cross-country fiscal multipliers.
This note lays out the context, the available data, sector implications, and a measured Fazen Capital perspective on likely scenarios and investment-relevant channels of transmission. It references contemporaneous reporting (The Guardian, 22 March 2026), structural flow statistics (U.S. EIA), and market microstructure for commodities and shipping. The aim is to provide institutional readers with a concise, data-driven assessment of exposure and tail-risk management considerations—not to provide investment advice.
The geopolitical trigger that forced market repricing was widely reported on 22 March 2026 (The Guardian). Immediate market commentary treated the event initially as a localized shock; within 24–72 hours the market shifted to price-in elevated persistent risk, reflecting lessons that modern supply disruptions are not always fleeting. The strategic geography is straightforward: the Strait of Hormuz remains the most important maritime chokepoint for crude oil, with roughly 21 mb/d of seaborne flows passing through in recent EIA accounting, representing roughly one-fifth of global oil production and a larger share of seaborne volumes.
Beyond transit statistics, the region houses key refining capacity and logistics infrastructure whose disablement or sanction-driven isolation would amplify the shock. Iran itself accounted for an estimated 2–3 mb/d of crude production potential prior to 2024 sanctions dynamics; any further suppression of that capacity or of neighbouring Gulf production through retaliatory attacks would tighten already lean commercial inventories. Strategic petroleum reserves (SPR) in OECD countries stood at approximately 1.5 billion barrels in 2025, offering a temporary buffer but not a structural substitute for sustained supply loss.
Policy response options are constrained. SPR releases, insurance and naval escorts can blunt an immediate spike but are costly and politically fraught; conversely, prolonged conflict raises questions about trade diversion to longer Asia-Europe routes (Suez) or overland alternatives, which increase per-barrel logistics costs and extend lead times for supply restoration. Central banks are watching headline inflation expectations: even a temporary jump to $90–100/bbl from a $75 baseline can feed through to services inflation and wage demands, complicating the current delicate balance of disinflation dynamics in some advanced economies.
Three data points are central to quantifying near-term exposure. First, the EIA-estimated 21 mb/d flow through the Strait of Hormuz (U.S. EIA, 2024) anchors the maximum directly transit-dependent volume at risk. Second, global oil demand was roughly in the low 100s mb/d zone by 2025 (IEA Oil Market Report, 2025), meaning that closure or severe disruption of Hormuz-exposed flows would require either rapid supply reallocation from non-seaborne sources or steep price rationing. Third, commercial crude inventories in OECD countries have tightened since 2021; OECD commercial stocks averaged roughly 2.7 billion barrels in late 2025 (IEA/OECD data), down from multi-year highs earlier in the decade, reducing the buffer available to absorb shocks.
Price sensitivity estimates are instructive. Historical episodes show that a 1 mb/d effective supply shortfall can move the Brent prompt contract by roughly $3–7 per barrel over weeks, depending on stock levels and forward curve positioning. This elasticity is non-linear: the first few mb/d of risk have a different market impact when backwardation becomes entrenched and when physical settlement pressure forces refiners or traders to cover short positions. Swap market metrics and implied volatility (OVX) surged in comparable incidents, reflecting an option-value premium for immediate physical availability.
Shipping and insurance data are a second-order but material channel. War-risk insurance for tankers can jump from low four-figure daily premiums to mid-five or six-figure levels when designated high-risk zones expand; such costs are typically passed through to charter rates (TC routes) and ultimately to delivered crude prices. In parallel, container shipping rates and freight-forwarding costs tend to see delayed but persistent rises where regional rerouting is required. Both channels amplify inflationary transmission from oil-price shocks into goods and services components.
Energy producers: Producers with spare capacity outside the Gulf—U.S. shale, West African producers and some OPEC+ members—stand to capture near-term margin expansion but face physical and logistical constraints in scaling volumes quickly. U.S. shale has demonstrated responsiveness historically, but long-lead capex and service cost inflation limit rapid uplift beyond a few hundred thousand barrels per day in short order. OPEC+ policy levers remain the primary swing supply mechanism; any decision to release incremental barrels would be politically mediated and potentially slower than markets require.
Refiners and trading houses: Refiners with access to alternative crude grades or long-term offtakes may arbitrage feedstock prices, but margins will be volatile. Trading houses that can mobilize tank storage and freight will capture basis and contango/backwardation opportunities; those with heavy exposure to physical cracks could face inventory losses if prompt physical shortages persist. Large trading desks hedge through swaps and options—implied volatility spikes increase hedging costs and can squeeze thinly capitalised counterparties.
Transport, insurance and logistics: Cargo insurance and war-risk premiums are immediate inputs to shipping costs. A systematic increase in route risk will raise the delivered cost of crude and refined products and may prompt buyers to accelerate alternative logistics investments—more pipeline capacity, storage hubs outside the Gulf and fixed-term charters. Macro sectors sensitive to energy costs—transportation, chemicals, and energy-intensive manufacturing—face margin pressure; equity valuations in those sectors typically trade at larger discount-to-market multiples in sustained oil-shock scenarios.
We model three structurally different scenarios: contained disruption (probability 40%), prolonged regional conflict (probability 35%), and escalation into broader Gulf interdiction (probability 25%). Contained disruption implies transient price spikes and limited spillovers: inventories and non-Gulf supply suffice to avoid long-run structural shortages. Prolonged conflict implies repeated episodic disruptions, elevated insurance and rerouting costs, and a sustained $8–$20/bbl structural premium for several quarters. Escalation would force fundamental reallocation of flows, sustained backwardation, and potentially recessionary effects in vulnerable economies.
Macro-financial spillovers vary by scenario. In the prolonged conflict case, central banks face a dilemma: higher headline inflation from energy costs could necessitate tighter policy even as growth slows—resulting in lower real rates but compressed growth-on-inflation outcomes. Sovereign credit spreads for Gulf states and regional banks would widen; commodity-exporting peers might see divergent outcomes based on fiscal buffers and currency regimes. Equity markets typically reprice cyclicals and small-cap, domestically focused firms more harshly under sustained higher energy prices.
Tail risks include cyber-attack escalation on maritime infrastructure, a broader regional coalition response that disrupts shipping across multiple choke points, and cascading sanction regimes that freeze corporate exposures. Each tail event increases the marginal cost of risk and reduces the efficacy of conventional policy tools. Stress-testing portfolios against such nonlinear outcomes is essential for institutional risk officers.
The conventional market narrative treats shocks to Gulf supply as transitory; we take a more nuanced, contrarian view. Structural factors—leaner commercial stocks, higher baseline demand in emerging markets, and a tighter compliance regime within large producing nations—mean that the same physical disruption now produces a larger price and economic shock than in earlier decades. We estimate that a persistent 3–4 mb/d effective supply reduction for two quarters would likely translate into a 5–12% uplift in Brent annualized prices and materially elevate global headline inflation by 0.4–1.0 percentage points over the period, depending on passthrough and fiscal offsets.
From a portfolio perspective, we expect dispersion rather than a uniform commodity shock. Firms and sovereigns with diversified export channels and liquid balance sheets should outperform peers dependent on single-route logistics or with high leverage. For investors, hedging should be evaluated not only by directional exposures but by optionality—capacity to access storage, flexible logistics contracts, and derivatives structures that protect against spikes while preserving upside capture. Fazen Capital continues to flag the importance of stress scenarios that assume protracted disruption rather than simple V-shaped recovery.
For further reading on related macro and commodity themes see our geopolitics and commodities insights.
Near-term volatility is likely to remain elevated. Markets will watch three observable indicators closely: (1) confirmed damage to transit infrastructure or expansion of designated high-risk maritime zones; (2) tangible production outages at Gulf facilities; and (3) aggregated OECD commercial inventory draws. If all three move adverse concurrently, a sustained premium becomes far more likely than a fleeting spike. Calendar-wise, the window for policy response through SPR releases and diplomatic de-escalation is limited to quarters rather than weeks.
Medium-term, the shock could accelerate structural shifts that were already in train: diversification of feedstock sources by large refiners, a reallocation of shipping capacity, and renewed investment in non-Gulf upstream projects where sanction risk is lower. The pace of these adjustments depends on the duration of elevated risk premia and whether market participants view the event as a regime shift or a transitory supply hiccup. For central banks and fiscal authorities, the key question will be whether elevated energy prices compound supply-side inflation or are absorbed through temporary fiscal measures.
Long-term risks center on policy and investment responses. If market participants price a permanently higher risk premium on Gulf flows, we could see accelerated capital flows into alternative energy capex or strategic storage infrastructure—responses that themselves will reshape commodity markets and present new allocation decisions for institutional investors.
The Iran-related escalation materially raises the probability of sustained oil-market dislocation, with meaningful second-order effects for inflation, growth and credit risk across regions. Institutions should stress-test exposures to both direct supply shocks and indirect channels such as insurance, logistics and regional credit spreads.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.
Q: How does this event compare to the 1990 Gulf War in economic impact?
A: Historically, the 1990 Gulf War caused a rapid 20–30% spike in oil prices and a shallow global growth shock as inventories and policy responses stabilized markets; current structural differences—leaner stocks, higher baseline demand in Asia, and faster derivatives market transmission—suggest that a similar physical shock today could produce larger price volatility and more persistent inflationary pressure, though the exact fiscal and monetary outcomes will depend on policy responses.
Q: What practical steps can corporates take to mitigate logistics risk?
A: Corporates should review contractual flexibility in shipping and charter arrangements, assess the cost-benefit of increased buffer inventories, and re-evaluate bilateral insurance coverage for war-risk premiums. For energy-intensive firms, hedging via options or collar strategies can cap peak input costs while allowing participation if prices reverse.
Q: Could SPR releases fully offset a prolonged supply disruption?
A: Strategic releases can blunt immediate price spikes but are finite and politically constrained; historically, SPRs are more effective at stabilizing short-term liquidity than supplanting sustained supply loss, so their use buys time rather than a permanent fix.
Sponsored
Open a demo account in 30 seconds. No deposit required.
CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.