Oil traders are suddenly pricing in a risk many desks had pushed to the background: what happens when the Middle East’s most important chokepoint becomes a frontline.
Crude rallied as the conflict involving Iran, the U.S., and Israel escalated, with market attention snapping to the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow passageway that handles roughly a fifth of the world’s seaborne oil flows.
The Guardian reported that threats to shipping and rising insurance fears helped push traffic through the strait toward a standstill, with tankers clustering on both sides as operators waited for clarity.
The immediate result has been a sharp “war premium.” In early moves this week, Brent jumped above $80 a barrel at points as traders reacted to attacks, warnings to vessels, and reports of damage to tankers.
City Index’s Fiona Cincotta said U.S. crude could be driven toward $90 if traffic doesn’t resume, while others have flagged $100 Brent as plausible if disruptions persist.
However, some desks are tempering the more aggressive calls, arguing that $100 oil typically requires either a prolonged blockage of Hormuz, meaningful outages at major export hubs, or a sustained hit to OPEC supply. The same Guardian report noted Iran had not formally shut the channel at one point, even as shipping activity slumped, and U.S. officials said the waterway remained open.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that he will unveil a program to mitigate energy costs due to the war later today. Macro guru Luke Gromen said this essentially means that “they will attempt to implement soft price controls on oil.”
At the time of writing, WTI is trading at $76.65, up 26% in the last month.
No—traders see $100 as a scenario risk tied to prolonged disruption, not a guaranteed outcome.