US-Israel Strikes on Iran Escalate Day 29
March 28, 20267m read1Standard
Fazen Markets Research
AI-Enhanced Analysis
US-IsraelIranMiddle EastOilGeopolitics
Lead paragraph
The US-Israel military campaign against Iran entered its 29th consecutive day on March 28, 2026, with Tehran warning of a "heavy price" following Israeli air attacks, according to Al Jazeera (Mar 28, 2026). Financial markets have repriced geopolitical risk quickly: ICE Brent futures were trading near $92.4 per barrel and NYMEX WTI near $87.1 per barrel on March 28, reflecting an approximate 12% year-on-year rise in Brent versus March 28, 2025 (ICE/NYMEX snapshot, Mar 28, 2026). Equity risk measures moved in parallel: the S&P 500 closed down roughly 1.6% on the day while the VIX spiked to ~22.5, indicating short-term volatility premia have expanded (market close data, Mar 28, 2026). This article examines the operational developments reported on day 29, quantifies market reactions, evaluates sectoral transmission channels and provides a Fazen Capital Perspective on scenarios that market participants may underweight.
On March 28, 2026 — day 29 of US-Israel strikes on Iran — reporting from Al Jazeera documents continued Israeli air attacks inside Iranian territory and a formal Iranian warning that a "heavy price" will be paid. The incident sequence differs from earlier episodes in 2023–2025 by the sustained duration and apparent increase in cross-border targeting of infrastructure assets rather than exclusively proxy forces in the region (Al Jazeera, Mar 28, 2026). For institutional investors, the key contextual variables are duration, geography and escalation ladders: sustained operations against seaports, energy infrastructure or nuclear-adjacent facilities materially change long-term risk assessments compared with episodic strikes against non-strategic military outposts.
The geographic concentration of global energy flows in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz amplifies those concerns. Roughly 20% of globally traded oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz in normal conditions (U.S. EIA, 2025), so disruptions or insurance surcharges for Gulf shipments quickly raise landed fuel costs in Europe and Asia. Historical precedents — 2019 tanker incidents in the Gulf and the 1990–1991 Gulf War — demonstrate how short-run spikes in freight, insurance and inventory hoarding can add 5–10% to delivered crude prices even with limited physical disruption to output.
Political signaling matters: public warnings by Tehran increase the asymmetric risk premium embedded in short-dated instruments more than in long-duration sovereign debt. That differential arises because markets price the immediate probability of supply chain shocks into spot-forward curves, while longer-term forecasts embed expectations of diplomatic resolution, reconstruction and altered capital allocation. For fixed-income desks, this means yield curve moves may be muted relative to commodity and FX volatility in the opening weeks of sustained kinetic operations.
Market pricing on March 28 shows immediate repricing across asset classes. ICE Brent futures near $92.4/bbl and NYMEX WTI at $87.1/bbl represent a month-to-date increase of approximately 4.2% and 3.5% respectively, while Brent is roughly 12% higher than the same date in 2025 (ICE/NYMEX snapshot, Mar 28, 2026). These moves were accompanied by a 1.6% intraday decline in the S&P 500 and a VIX increase to about 22.5, consistent with a rotation from equities into safe-haven assets and cash hedges (market close data, Mar 28, 2026). Oil term structure also steepened: the one-month/one-year Brent calendar spread widened by ~45 cents/bbl on heavy risk-on/off flows, signaling market short-term concern about supply-disruption probabilities.
Trade and logistics indicators corroborate price signals. Freight indices for Middle East–Asia crude routes rose by an estimated 8–12% in early trading on March 28 as charterers avoided Gulf loadings and sought alternative liftings from West Africa and the North Sea (shipping broker reports, Mar 28, 2026). Insurance premium anecdotes from maritime brokers indicated Immediate Payment of War Risk Premiums (WRP) on some Gulf-bearing voyages increased by several basis points, concretely raising voyage costs for VLCCs and Suezmaxes. These cost increments, when annualized across shipping cycles, magnify delivered crude cost by a non-trivial margin to refiners, especially for tight-margin products like diesel in Europe.
FX and EM spillovers appeared uneven. Gulf-adjacent currencies depreciated modestly against the dollar on March 28, while oil-exporter sovereign credit spreads widened, with CDS on a representative Gulf issuer up ~18–25 basis points intraday (tradeable CDS snapshot, Mar 28, 2026). The asymmetric reaction — stronger for commodity-linked credits and limited for G7 sovereigns — underscores market segmentation: direct exposure to regional trade and commodity flows matters more than headline contagion in the opening phase of kinetic escalation.
Energy: The most immediate sectoral impact is on upstream and midstream energy companies with Gulf exposure. Integrated majors operating Gulf terminals or refineries face operational risk and insurance cost increases; smaller, regionally focused players may face higher refinancing costs as credit spreads reprice. Refiners with access to Atlantic basin crude grades may obtain a relative advantage versus those reliant on medium-sour Gulf barrels, prompting short-term crack spread divergence. Traders should note the differential in feedstock availability and the potential for arbitrage across Atlantic and Pacific markets.
Shipping & Logistics: Container lines and tanker operators have to navigate rerouting, longer sailing times and higher insurance premiums. A conservative estimate from industry brokers on March 28 suggested rerouting around the Cape of Good Hope for some tanker voyages could add 7–10 days to transit, increasing time-charter equivalent (TCE) costs materially for spot fixtures. This feeds through to higher delivered product prices and potential logistical bottlenecks for energy-intensive manufacturing, especially in Europe and South Asia.
Financials & Insurance: P&I clubs and war-risk insurers typically re-evaluate exposure after three to four weeks of sustained hostilities; day 29 therefore represents a threshold where underwriting assumptions are commonly tightened. Underwriters may reduce per-voyage limits or impose stricter route exclusions, which increases the operational cost base for maritime-heavy corporates and can lead to contingent liabilities crystallizing in corporate filings. Banks with large trade-finance books anchored to Gulf flows will monitor default probabilities and collateral valuations closely, especially if commodity-backed receivables are drawn down.
Operational risk remains elevated across three vectors: physical damage to energy infrastructure, indirect disruption via shipping and insurance frictions, and escalation into wider regional conflict that draws in additional state actors. The probability of limited, targeted strikes that disrupt terminals or pipelines is higher than the probability of full-scale national conflict within 30 days, but market pricing often overreacts to headline risk, particularly in illiquid forwards and options markets. Scenario analysis should therefore discriminate between transient supply shocks (days–weeks) and structural risk shifts (months–years).
Macro contagion risk is asymmetric. Commodity-sensitive emerging markets with large import bills are vulnerable to a rise in oil prices: a $10/bbl increase in Brent typically widens current account deficits for net-importers by 0.5–1.0% of GDP in the first year, according to documented historical elasticities (IMF commodity elasticity studies, 2019–2023). Conversely, oil exporters may post higher fiscal receipts but face political risk and operational disruption at home. For portfolio managers, the differential impact suggests tactical reweighting should be calibrated to duration and liquidity rather than headline conviction.
Policy risk adds a second-order effect. Sanctions dynamics, export controls and secondary measures can create persistent supply-side distortions; the more sanctions are layered onto financial instruments or shipping registries, the longer market dislocations persist. Central banks typically react to such shocks through FX interventions or rate adjustments only when spillovers materially threaten inflation targets; thus monetary policy may lag market moves in the early stages of a conflict.
Fazen Capital views current market pricing as disproportionately front-loaded toward the short-term physical disruption narrative and underweights two countervailing dynamics. First, global spare capacity outside the Gulf — particularly in the U.S. shale complex and Canadian heavy oil — remains a credible buffer over a 3–6 month horizon, albeit at higher marginal cost. Second, logistic elasticity exists: charterers can and historically do re-route cargoes, tap floating storage and accelerate non-Gulf loadings to contain price spikes within several weeks. These dynamics imply that while short-dated volatility measures and insurance premia can spike quickly (as seen on March 28, 2026), structural supply deficits that sustain multi-year price increases are less probable absent damage to major export infrastructure or protracted sanctions that choke alternate sourcing.
Contrarian but evidence-based: portfolio hedging that targets multi-month backwardation in oil forwards may be overpaying for immediacy. Market participants should consider more calibrated, time-limited protections aligned with identifiable event windows rather than broad, open-ended hedges that carry large theta costs. Fazen Capital also highlights the importance of scenario-weighted stress tests for corporate treasuries and energy-intensive industrials: incremental freight or insurance costs of 5–10% can be absorbed operationally for a quarter, but repeated shocks compound into margin erosion if not anticipated.
For further context on geopolitics and commodities transmission channels, see our research on geopolitics and the interaction with energy markets in our commodities briefing at energy insights.
Day 29's developments — reported March 28, 2026 — materially raised short-term risk premia across oil, shipping and selective credit, but available spare capacity and logistic rerouting suggest that sustained multi-year structural shortages are not the baseline scenario. Markets will remain volatile until either a de-escalation signal is credible or tangible damage to major export infrastructure occurs.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.
Q: How does this event compare to 2019 Gulf incidents and the 1990–1991 Gulf War?
A: The 2019 tanker incidents produced rapid but short-lived spikes in freight and insurance that normalized within months once state-level direct damage was avoided; the 1990–1991 Gulf War caused a substantive multi-quarter supply shock because terminal and pipeline connectivity was impaired and sanctions persisted. Day 29 (Mar 28, 2026) resembles 2019 in that the primary signal so far is elevated risk premia and rerouting costs, not systemic destruction of export capacity (Al Jazeera, Mar 28, 2026; historical trade data).
Q: What practical steps should corporates with Gulf exposure prioritize now?
A: Practical measures include stress-testing cashflows for a 5–15% rise in delivered fuel and freight costs over a 90-day window, reassessing trade-finance collateral values tied to Gulf-origin cargoes, and negotiating contingent logistics clauses. While this is not investment advice, operational continuity planning and short-term hedging aligned to identifiable shipping windows are historically effective mitigants.
Q: Could sanctions materially change the market baseline?
A: Yes. If sanctions broaden to include maritime services, insurance or secondary financial channels, rerouting and market fragmentation could persist beyond the short-term buffer provided by spare capacity. That scenario would push market outcomes closer to the 1990–1991 template and warrants higher structural premia.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.
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.