Iran War Likely to Persist, CSIS Says

Lead paragraph

Context

On March 26, 2026, Seeking Alpha reported comments from Clay Seigle of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) stating there will not be an early end to the Iran war (Seeking Alpha, Mar 26, 2026). That assessment formalizes a shift in expert expectations from rapid de-escalation toward a prolonged, multi-theater campaign, with direct implications for regional security and global markets. Investors and policy-makers are recalibrating exposures not on the assumption of a short shock but around scenarios that extend through late 2026 and potentially into 2027, increasing the salience of strategic planning across portfolios. This article synthesizes public statements, historical precedent, and sector-level data to outline the probable trajectory, market transmission channels, and portfolio considerations.

The prospect of a protracted conflict is not unprecedented in the Gulf. Historical events provide a template: the 2019 attacks on Saudi facilities—widely reported to have taken offline roughly 5.7 million barrels per day of capacity temporarily—demonstrated how asymmetric operations can produce outsized market volatility (IEA/press reports, Sep 2019). Similarly, the post-2018 period after the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA on May 8, 2018, saw sanctions-driven shifts in Iranian exports that reshaped regional risk profiles. Those episodes emphasize that military and paramilitary actions, sanctions, and supply-chain disruptions can interact and sustain elevated risk premia for months to years.

The CSIS assessment carries weight because of the institution’s track record in geopolitical analysis; investors treat CSIS commentary as a barometer rather than a predictive model. The immediate market reaction to such assessments tends to be concentrated—commodity forward curves steepen, insurers reprice hull and cargo risk, and sovereign-credit spreads for regional issuers widen. This article uses the CSIS statement as a touchpoint to quantify transmission channels and to present scenarios for institutional investors.

Data Deep Dive

First, timeline and sourcing: the core public signal is the Seeking Alpha report quoting Clay Seigle on March 26, 2026 (Seeking Alpha, Mar 26, 2026). That date anchors our analysis to the current intelligence and open-source commentary available to markets. Second, historical benchmarks: the JCPOA was concluded in July 2015 and the U.S. withdrawal occurred on May 8, 2018—two fixed dates that shaped sanctions cycles and export levels. Third, kinetic precedent: the Sep 2019 attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure (reported as disrupting roughly 5.7m b/d) provide a quantitative example of capacity risk; even short-duration hits translated into days of elevated Brent volatility and forced tactical rerouting of crude and refined flows (IEA, Sep 2019; public reports).

Turning to market channels, three quantifiable transmission mechanisms are evident. One, commodity risk: crude and refined product forward curves historically reflect geopolitical spikes; in 2019, nearby Brent futures rose more than 10% intraday on attack news before retracing as markets absorbed new supply arrangements. Two, insurance and freight risk: attacks on shipping lanes increase insurance premiums for vessels in the Gulf and the Gulf of Aden—P&I and hull war-risk surcharges have in prior episodes risen by several hundred percent for transits through specific chokepoints (industry reports). Three, sovereign and corporate credit: regional sovereign spreads and bank funding costs have widened in periods of heightened hostilities—measured moves of 50–200 basis points have occurred for issuers perceived as vulnerable to spillover.

A responsible data-driven view requires caveats: public open-source figures are often lagged and uneven. Seeking Alpha’s March 26, 2026 article reports the CSIS view but does not publish classified intelligence; rather it interprets operational patterns and political calculus. Where possible we triangulate with open historical data (IEA, public news archives, and official dates such as May 8, 2018 for the JCPOA U.S. withdrawal) to quantify potential market responses.

Sector Implications

Energy: Prolonged regional insecurity typically raises the structural risk premium on oil and gas. Using the 2019 benchmark where physical capacity risk produced a short-term price shock, a protracted campaign could translate into a sustained wedge between spot and futures prices—benefitting producers with flexible output and pressuring refiners reliant on precise feedstock grades. Institutional buyers and energy-focused funds should expect increased volatility in crude differentials, an elevated probability of spot shortages in regional hubs, and upward pressure on freight rates for VLCCs and Suezmax vessels.

Shipping and insurance: prior campaigns and irregular warfare in the Gulf region have caused war-risk insurance premiums to jump for transits through the Strait of Hormuz and adjacent waterways. For shipping-intensive investment strategies, increased voyage costs and potential rerouting via the Cape of Good Hope add both capex and opex uncertainty. Reinsurers’ capacity decisions also matter: if primary markets pull back, secondary markets may fill gaps at materially higher prices, affecting logistics cost structures for energy and non-energy trade flows.

Credit and equities: regional banks, exporters, and sectors with concentrated supply-chain exposure (e.g., petrochemicals, logistics) face higher funding spreads and equity discount rates. Historical episodes show sovereign bond spreads for at-risk nations can widen by 100–200 basis points at the height of conflict-related risk, while regional equity indices underperform global peers by several percentage points over multi-month windows. International investors should consider liquidity lines and stress testing against multi-month dislocations rather than single-day shocks.

Risk Assessment

Scenario analysis is the principal tool to adjudicate portfolio actions. A baseline scenario—CSIS’s stated expectation of no early end—implies intermittent escalations and attritional operations that persist through Q4 2026. Under that baseline, commodity and freight premia stay elevated but markets find ways to re-route and substitute supply. A downside scenario with wider regional spillover (including attacks on major terminals or an expanded air campaign) would produce abrupt price impulses and banking-sector stress for nearby jurisdictions; historical comparisons such as the 2003–2011 Iraq security and reconstruction period provide a rough analog for protracted regional financial strain.

Probability-weighted outcomes should incorporate both intensity and duration: shorter, higher-intensity shocks produce large but brief market dislocations; longer, lower-intensity campaigns raise steady-state costs and disrupt investment plans. Credit stress tests should include a 150–200 bps widening of regional spreads and a 10–20% equity drawdown for exposed sectors as plausible calibration ranges given historical analogs (markets in 2019 and post-2018 sanctions cycles offer directional guidance). Liquidity buffers and covenant headroom assumptions must be revisited in light of these stress ranges.

Information asymmetry and policy uncertainty compound risk. Statements like those by CSIS shape market sentiment, but state behavior remains the primary driver of kinetic escalation. Sanctions rollouts, third-party proxy actions, and maritime interdictions each have asymmetric probabilities that alter the expected value of different scenarios.

Fazen Capital Perspective

Fazen Capital takes a differentiated view: while the market is rightly focused on downside tail risk from kinetic escalation, attention is underweighted on two non-obvious transmission channels. First, secondary supply-chain effects in refined products and petrochemicals could produce sustained regional inflationary pressures even if crude supply is substituted globally—refining complexity and grade mismatches matter. Second, the insurance-cost externality may induce longer-term modal shifts in global trade routes; persistent higher insurance and freight costs will favor vertically integrated energy players and national champions that can internalize logistics, altering competitive dynamics in the sector.

We also see a contrarian risk: near-term market prices may over-discount the probability of a worst-case region-wide conflict because stakeholders—state and commercial—have incentives to avoid such escalation. Brokered containment, silent diplomacy, and deconfliction channels remain active variables that can cap the upper tail. Accordingly, a tactical, option-like allocation approach that buys protection on the headline risks while maintaining flexibility to redeploy capital if a negotiated containment scenario emerges is a prudential construct for institutional portfolios focused on capital preservation and selective alpha.

For institutional risk teams, the practical implication is to layer mitigants: review counterparty exposures to Gulf logistics, increase frequency of scenario testing to monthly from quarterly, and stress test funds and mandates against sustained insurance and freight premium increases. For active strategies, this environment creates dispersion—winners and losers are determined by supply-chain flexibility, balance-sheet resilience, and the ability to capture rising basis spreads.

FAQ

Q: How long has Iran engaged in asymmetric operations that affect global markets? A: Iran’s use of asymmetric tools has been evident for more than a decade; notable dates include the July 2015 JCPOA agreement, the U.S. withdrawal on May 8, 2018, and the Sep 14, 2019 attacks on Saudi facilities that temporarily disrupted an estimated 5.7 million barrels per day of capacity (public reporting and IEA summaries). Those episodes illustrate the recurrent potential for outsized market effects.

Q: What are practical hedges institutions have used historically? A: Historically, institutions have used options and structured collars on commodity exposure, increased counterparty diversification for logistics contracts, and expanded credit lines for regional subsidiaries. Insurance procurement and contracting strategies that transfer war-risk to specialized markets have also been common—though these can become expensive during prolonged campaigns.

Q: Could markets revert quickly if a ceasefire is declared? A: Yes—markets have historically retraced much of a conflict premium quickly once credible, enforceable containment measures are in place. The pace of normalization depends on physical damage, sanctions rollbacks, and re-routing lead times; however, the market’s initial overshoot is often reversed within weeks if supply restoration is evident.

Bottom Line

CSIS’s March 26, 2026 assessment that there will not be an early end to the Iran war reframes market planning from shock response to multi-quarter contingency. Institutional investors should prioritize scenario testing, logistics resilience, and opportunistic hedging while staying attentive to diplomatic developments.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

Related insights: geopolitics | energy