US-Israel War on Iran Marks One Month
March 28, 20267m read1Standard
Fazen Markets Research
AI-Enhanced Analysis
US-Israel warIranMiddle East conflictenergy disruptiongeopolitical risk
The US-Israel campaign against Iranian targets entered its fourth week in late March 2026, marking roughly 28 days since initial strikes began in late February (Al Jazeera, Mar 28, 2026). What started as a limited kinetic escalatory step has expanded into a multi-front confrontation across the Gulf, Levant and Red Sea maritime routes, involving state and non-state actors. The operational tempo — including ballistic missile launches, drone barrages and covert sabotage — has increased both geographically and in frequency, producing a stepped-up risk environment for commercial shipping, regional hydrocarbons infrastructure, and financial flows linked to the Middle East. This piece synthesizes verified data points, historical analogues and market implications to frame what institutional investors and risk managers should monitor as the crisis evolves.
The conflict's timeline matters for transmission channels to markets: initial strikes in late February were followed by reciprocal attacks through March, according to a March 28 Al Jazeera timeline (Al Jazeera, Mar 28, 2026). Supply disruption risk is concentrated because the Strait of Hormuz remains a chokepoint, carrying roughly 20-21% of global seaborne oil flows per the International Energy Agency (IEA, 2024). That concentration amplifies the economic sensitivity of relatively localized damage or insurance/escorts changes. Policymakers in the US, EU and Gulf states have already signaled a mix of diplomatic pressure and force posture adjustments; these responses will shape market perceptions as much as the kinetic events themselves.
Finally, the conflict's diffusion to proxy theaters — including increased attacks on shipping in the Red Sea and missile strikes in Iraq and Syria — raises the prospect of sustained operational costs for commercial operators. Even absent a catastrophic single event, repeated attrition erodes throughput via higher insurance, longer routing around the Cape of Good Hope and elevated security costs for terminals and crews. Those frictions accumulate into measurable price and margin impacts for energy companies, shipping lines and insurers over a span of weeks to months rather than days, a dynamic distinct from short-lived headlines.
Three quantifiable reference points anchor our assessment. First, the situation is now approximately 28 days from first strikes in late February 2026 (Al Jazeera, Mar 28, 2026). Second, the Strait of Hormuz carries about 20-21% of seaborne oil flows (IEA, 2024), underscoring the systemic leverage of disruptions there. Third, the 2019 Abqaiq/Shaybah attacks knocked out an estimated 5.7 million barrels per day of Saudi crude capacity temporarily (IEA, Sept 2019), an instructive historical precedent for how quickly regional supply shocks can compress markets even when production is restored within weeks.
Comparative metrics are instructive. In 2019, Brent jumped roughly 10-12% on the initial Abqaiq shock days before retracing as supply normalized; by contrast, a sustained campaign that intermittently disrupts shipping and forces insurers to reclassify premium tiers can produce a multi-week premium that outlasts the initial price spike (EIA, news reports 2019). Year-on-year comparisons to the same seasonal window (spring 2025 vs spring 2026) should therefore control for inventory cycles: strategic and commercial oil stocks, refinery maintenance schedules and biofuel blending deadlines can all amplify or dampen price sensitivity. Asset managers should monitor weekly EIA/IEA stock reports alongside port throughput and war-risk premium notices from major P&I and hull insurers.
Market reaction is measurable across instruments in prior episodes and in early moves this month. Historically, sovereign CDS on regional issuers widened in the immediate aftermath of kinetic escalations, while oil contango/backwardation profiles adjusted to reflect perceived forward supply risk. Shipping indices and Lloyd's war-risk premiums have historically spiked 50-100% in short windows during intense flare-ups; while specific 2026 premium data remains fluid, insurers publicly signalled rate repricing in late March and shipping operators began rerouting options to avoid high-risk corridors. These concrete numbers and comparable precedents inform credible stress scenarios for portfolios exposed to energy, transport and emerging-market sovereign credit.
Energy producers and refiners face differentiated risk. Large integrated majors with diversified production and access to multiple basins are better positioned to absorb a weeks-long premium shock, whereas regional independent producers and refineries that rely on Gulf crude or single-route offtake agreements have materially higher vulnerability to throughput losses. The 5.7 million b/d outage in 2019 underscores how quickly a regional disruption can affect refinery margins globally; if similar scale disruption re-occurs, Asia and Europe could face tighter product markets within days. For physical traders, the signal has already been to lengthen forward hedges and increase contingency cargo coverage.
Maritime and logistics sectors show immediate operational stress. Re-routing around the Cape of Good Hope adds roughly 7–10 days to typical Europe-Asia voyages and increases bunker fuel consumption materially, shaving thin shipping margins and raising spot freight rates. Container and tanker operators that reported thin capacity buffers in 2025 will see those buffers erode quicker under repeated rerouting; historical container spot peaks during major Suez/Red Sea disruptions are instructive as a parallel. Insurers and P&I clubs are reassessing underwriting exposures, a development that transmits as explicit cost to shippers and ultimately to commodity end-users.
Financial markets have already priced partial risk: regional FX and sovereign spreads may widen on further escalation, while energy equities typically show mixed performance with upstream firms rallying on higher commodity prices and refining/transport sectors lagging due to margin pressure and operational disruption. A comparison to previous geopolitical shocks reveals a pattern: commodity-exposed equities often outperform broader indices in the weeks immediately following physical disruptions, but that outperformance can reverse as supply-side responses and strategic stock releases offset initial tightness. Monitoring real-time inventory metrics and forward-looking shipping indicators is therefore critical for sector allocation decisions.
Operational risk includes direct damage to infrastructure, interruption of shipping lanes, and cyber/causal attacks on ports and terminals. The probability of one-off catastrophic damage is difficult to quantify, but the frequency of lower-scale attacks — drones, limpet mines, and small-boat engagements — has increased in the past month, raising the expected loss from attritional damage. Credit and liquidity risks for smaller regional operators become acute if interruptions persist beyond a few weeks, when working capital cycles and hedging positions start to unwind. Insurers' reaction functions, including premium hikes and exclusions, are an amplifying mechanism that adds non-linear costs to trade flows.
Policy risk and escalation ladders are central to tail-risk modeling. US and allied naval deployments, diplomatic sanctions, and asymmetric Iranian or proxy responses all sit on decision trees with vastly different market outcomes. Historical case studies — notably 1990-91 and 2019 — show that policy coordination (release of strategic stocks, diplomatic channels) can blunt peak price spikes but do not eliminate secondary economic costs such as higher insurance and rerouting expenses. For institutional portfolios, scenario planning should therefore combine near-term shock models with medium-term fiscal and regulatory response layers.
Counterparty and concentration risk deserve specific attention. Many shipping, trading and refining contracts remain bilateral and jurisdictionally concentrated; prolonged disruption elevates the likelihood of late deliveries, force majeure declarations and margin calls. That creates knock-on exposures to banks providing trade finance and to hedge counterparties covering commodity price exposure. Stress testing counterparty defaults under a 30–90 day disruption scenario is a prudent risk-management step, given the tens of billions of dollars of short-term credit intermediation embedded in global energy trade.
Near-term trajectories depend on the operational tempo and diplomatic windows. If kinetic actions decline and de-escalatory channels open within 2–4 weeks, markets are likely to retrace most of the initial price moves, with insurance and logistical costs normalizing over a two-to-three month horizon. Conversely, a protracted pattern of intermittent strikes that sustain rerouting or insurance repricing could maintain an elevated cost baseline for shipping and refining for several quarters, even absent permanent loss of production capacity. The most sensitive metric to watch is cumulative days of Gulf chokepoint disruption; each incremental week of effectively reduced throughput compounds backlogs and drives outsized economic effects.
For sovereign-credit investors, the outlook diverges by issuer. Gulf states with sizable FX reserves and diversified export customers can weather short-term disruptions more comfortably than smaller exporters with concentrated fiscal break-evens. For industrial and energy corporates, balance-sheet strength and diversification across geographies and routes remain the nearest-term defenses against operational and margin shocks. Active monitoring of weekly IEA/EIA statistics, port call data, and insurer bulletin updates should guide dynamic hedging and contingency funding plans.
Fazen Capital's view emphasizes the importance of treating this event as a multi-channel risk transmission process rather than a one-off supply shock. The current crisis exhibits three compounding transmission channels: direct physical disruption to production or terminals, logistics and rerouting costs that increase unit economics for transport and refining, and financial transmission via credit and insurance repricing. Institutional portfolios that price only spot oil movements without integrating shipping-cost escalations and counterparty credit feedbacks will understate economic exposure. See our broader work on geopolitical risk and energy markets for frameworks to operationalize scenario analysis.
A contrarian insight: markets often overprice immediate headline risk and underprice protracted attrition costs. In several prior Middle East flare-ups, the largest persistent economic costs accrued not from the acute price spike but from elevated insurance and longer sailing distances that subtracted margin across the logistics chain for months. For institutional investors, this means prioritizing cash-flow sensitivity to sustained cost increases — e.g., capex and opex implications for refineries and shipping — rather than short-duration commodity directional bets. That view suggests hedging approaches focused on operational exposures and counterparty resilience over pure directional oil exposure.
Finally, risk premia in energy and shipping can create tactical opportunities for diversified, long-term investors when markets overreact. However, timing such entry points requires granular monitoring of both field-level production recoveries and insurer policy cycles. Fazen Capital recommends combining high-frequency physical indicators with traditional financial stress metrics — a methodology detailed in our insights series — to identify asymmetric risk/reward windows when transient premiums revert.
Q: How quickly can global oil markets absorb a sustained reduction of 1–2 million barrels per day?
A: Absorbing a sustained 1–2 million b/d shortfall typically requires coordinated responses: release of strategic petroleum reserves, temporary reductions in refinery throughput, and demand adjustments. Historically, the market response window ranges from several weeks for acute price adjustment to multiple months for full rebalancing, depending on inventory buffers. The 2019 Abqaiq episode demonstrates that physical recovery can be rapid while secondary cost channels (insurance, rerouting) persist.
Q: What indicators should risk managers track most closely over the next 30 days?
A: Priority indicators are weekly IEA/EIA inventory data, port call and AIS congestion metrics for key chokepoints, Lloyd's and major P&I club war-risk premium notices, sovereign CDS spreads for exposed Gulf issuers, and announced policy actions (e.g., SPR releases). These variables together capture the three transmission channels we flag: physical supply, logistics friction, and financial stress.
The conflict's one-month arc has converted headline risk into sustained operational and financial frictions with measurable economic channels; institutional monitoring should prioritize shipping, insurance and counterparty stress metrics alongside commodity prices. Immediate decisions should be guided by scenario plans that integrate physical throughput days, insurer repricing thresholds and counterparty liquidity stress.
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.