Wars in West Asia are often measured in missiles and maps. This one may ultimately be measured in barrels and basis points. The US-Israeli strikes on Iran and Tehran’s retaliation have done more than redraw military red lines. They have reintroduced a familiar but deeply destabilising variable into the global economy: energy insecurity. The immediate surge in Brent crude and liquefied natural gas prices is not merely a trader’s reflex.
It is a reminder that the Strait of Hormuz remains the narrow hinge on which global growth swings. Roughly a fifth of the world’s oil and a significant share of LNG exports transit that corridor. When Iranian commanders warn vessels away, when tankers anchor rather than sail, when insurers quietly recalculate risk premiums, the shock travels far beyond the Gulf. It reaches Frankfurt bond desks, London trading floors, and petrol pumps in Mumbai. The market reaction so far has been sharp but not panicked. That distinction matters. Prices have spiked, then partially retreated, signalling that traders believe disruption is possible but not yet systemic. Oil infrastructure has not been comprehensively destroyed. Production in Saudi Arabia and Qatar has not collapsed. Opec+ has indicated willingness to increase output modestly. But the danger lies in duration, not drama. If elevated prices persist for weeks rather than days, central banks such as the Bank of England and the US Federal Reserve will confront an unwelcome complication. Inflation, which had been easing after aggressive tightening cycles, could reaccelerate through fuel, freight, and food costs.
Advertisement
A delayed rate cut here, a postponed easing there, and suddenly the global recovery narrative frays. For emerging economies, the pressure is more immediate. Higher crude prices widen trade deficits and weaken currencies. Governments must choose between absorbing fuel subsidies or passing costs to consumers. Either option carries political risk. India, heavily dependent on imported energy, is particularly exposed to volatility in the Gulf transit routes. The strategic irony is striking. Washington’s stated objective was to constrain Iran’s nuclear trajectory and degrade its deterrent capacity. Yet the most immediate leverage Tehran retains may be economic rather than military. It does not need to close the Strait of Hormuz outright; it merely needs to keep uncertainty alive. Markets price fear faster than governments can calm it.
Advertisement
History offers caution. The oil shocks of the 1970s were not solely about physical scarcity. They were about confidence evaporating. Today’s global economy is more diversified and more energy-efficient, but it remains psychologically vulnerable to chokepoints. The decisive question is not whether oil briefly touches $90 or even $100. It is whether shipping lanes normalise quickly or become semi-permanent theatres of contestation. If the Strait becomes a bargaining chip in a prolonged confrontation between Washington, Tel Aviv and Tehran, the economic aftershocks will outlast the initial exchange of fire. In modern geopolitics, escalation is transmitted as much through markets as through missiles. President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu have opened a Pandora’s Box.
Advertisement