Analysis

Iran Activates Its ‘Resistance Economy’ to Survive the War: How Tehran Is Rewriting the Rules of Economic Warfare in 2026

Published

3 months ago

March 29, 2026

On the morning of Nowruz — Persian New Year, March 20, 2026 — a state television anchor read aloud a written statement from a man whose face the world has scarcely seen. Iran’s new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, had not appeared in public since ascending to the position following the assassination of his father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, at the start of a devastating US-Israeli military campaign on February 28. Yet his words carried enormous weight. He named the incoming year’s governing slogan: “Resistance Economy in the Shadow of National Unity and National Security.” At the very moment that Brent crude was trading above $100 a barrel — and the International Energy Agency was characterizing the Strait of Hormuz closure as the “greatest global energy security challenge in history” — Tehran had chosen not retreat, but doctrine.

This is not a crisis-management gambit. It is an ideology finding its moment.

The Origins and Evolution of Iran’s Resistance Economy

The phrase iqtisad-e moqavemati — resistance economy — has circulated in Iranian political discourse for over a decade. Ali Khamenei first introduced it formally around 2012, at the height of what Tehran characterized as the “economic war” waged by the Obama administration’s crippling oil embargo. The concept drew on a distinctly Iranian blend of revolutionary theology, post-war reconstruction memory, and third-world anti-imperialism: the idea that external pressure could be converted, almost alchemically, into self-sufficiency.

But for most of the decade between 2012 and 2022, the resistance economy remained closer to aspiration than architecture. Iranian economic policymakers — influenced by business lobbies and, during the Rouhani years, by a genuine belief that integration with the West was achievable — declined to implement the measures the doctrine implied: capital controls, import substitution industrialization, state-directed strategic reserves, and the dismantling of dollar dependency in trade settlement. What resilience the economy demonstrated was largely bottom-up: bazaaris improvising supply chains, engineers reverse-engineering sanctioned components, ordinary Iranians converting salaries into gold and dollars the moment they were paid.

The World Bank has documented what this failure to truly build the resistance economy produced: a “lost decade” of per-capita GDP growth between 2011 and 2020, contracting at an average annual rate of 0.6%. By early 2026, an estimated 22% to 50% of Iranians lived below the poverty line, while the Ministry of Social Welfare acknowledged that 57% of the population was experiencing some level of malnutrition. The rial, which traded at 70 to the dollar before the 1979 revolution, surpassed one million rials to the dollar in March 2025 — the least valuable currency on earth at that moment.

Then came the war. And with it, the pressure to finally build what had only been promised.

How the Post-12-Day War Reality Is Forcing Activation

The June 2025 “12-Day War” — Israel’s Operation Rising Lion and Iran’s retaliatory strikes — was devastating in ways that go beyond the military ledger. It targeted Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, killed senior commanders and scientists, and, alongside the January 2026 domestic protests that convulsed all 31 provinces, pushed an already fragile economy to the edge. The World Bank had projected Iran’s GDP would shrink 2.8% in 2026 before the full-scale war began on February 28. Now, with the Strait of Hormuz closed and oil supply disrupted by an estimated 8 million barrels per day, those forecasts are academic.

What the post-February 28 reality has done is collapse the ambiguity that previously surrounded Iran’s economic model. Before, there were two coexisting systems: a formal economy nominally integrated into global supply chains, and an informal IRGC-linked parallel economy operating through sanctions evasion. Now, with international marine insurers — the International Group of 12 P&I Clubs, covering 90% of ocean-going tonnage — having withdrawn cover for Hormuz transits, the formal economy has effectively been severed. What remains is the parallel system, now declared, by the Supreme Leader himself, to be the national model.

The macroeconomic data is harrowing. Inflation has surged to 45–60% in 2026, according to a mixed-methods analysis drawing on IMF, World Bank, and Central Bank of Iran data. Iran’s fiscal deficit now exceeds 10% of GDP. Food price inflation reached 105% by mid-March. The Central Bank issued its largest denomination banknote ever — 10 million rials — a monument to purchasing-power collapse. In Tehran’s Grand Bazaar, the commercial nerve center that has served as Iran’s economic barometer since the Safavid era, merchants whisper about a city divided: those with dollar accounts and IRGC connections, and everyone else.

Yet the regime has not collapsed. Understanding why requires looking at the other economy — the one that was never meant to be seen.

IRGC’s Shadow Empire: Sanctions Evasion 2.0

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps controls approximately 50% of Iran’s oil export revenue, according to multiple independent analyses. That figure is the central fact of Iran’s wartime political economy. It explains why the civilian economy and the war machine now operate as two entirely separate systems — one visibly deteriorating, the other remarkably intact.

Since February 28, Iranian crude has continued flowing to China via what the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center calls the “Axis of Evasion”: a network of shadow fleet tankers operating with transponders disabled, flags altered, and GPS spoofed. Tanker-tracking data show that roughly 11.7 million barrels of Iranian crude reached Chinese refineries between February 28 and March 15 alone — none of it settled in dollars. Every barrel was cleared through China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS), which processed the equivalent of $245 trillion in yuan-denominated transactions in 2025, a 43% increase from the prior year.

China absorbs roughly 90% of Iran’s oil exports. The buyers are not, for the most part, China’s major state oil companies, which remain wary of secondary sanctions. Instead, they are the “teapot” refineries — small, nominally independent processors clustered in Shandong province — which provide Beijing a degree of plausible deniability while maintaining deep operational links to state enterprises. The arrangement functions as a geopolitical subcontract: China gets discounted oil, Iran gets a lifeline, and the US Treasury’s secondary sanctions fall on entities too small to cause systemic bilateral damage.

The IRGC’s role in structuring these flows goes beyond logistics. Sanctioned shipping networks traced by Kharon researchers reveal elaborate webs of Hong Kong front companies, Shanghai ship management firms, and Barbados-flagged tankers operating as a coherent system — not a collection of opportunistic actors. Meanwhile, the Atlantic Council documents how Iran’s missile and drone production is sustained by Chinese chemical companies supplying precursors for solid rocket fuels through the same shadow supply chains that move crude. The resistance economy is not merely financial; it is industrial.

There is an older template here worth recalling. During the Iran-Iraq War of 1980–1988, the IRGC’s economic role expanded dramatically out of wartime necessity — and never contracted. The post-war privatizations of the 1990s, intended to modernize the economy, instead delivered state assets to IRGC-affiliated conglomerates, most notably Khatam al-Anbiya, the corps’ vast engineering arm. Each subsequent sanctions wave — 2012, 2018, 2025 — repeated the pattern: as foreign firms exited and private companies struggled, IRGC entities, with their currency access, informal trade routes, and political protection, were positioned to absorb what remained. The resistance economy is, in significant part, the IRGC economy with a new name.

Economic Trade-Offs: Survival vs. Collapse

The distinction between regime survival and national economic wellbeing has never been sharper. The IRGC’s parallel economy — oil revenues flowing through shadow infrastructure, yuan settlement systems, barter arrangements with Russia and Venezuela — can sustain the security apparatus and military operations for months, perhaps longer. But it cannot reverse the structural collapse of the civilian economy or prevent the poverty trap from deepening.

Data Box: Iran’s Economic Vital Signs, March 2026

Inflation: 45–60% (IMF/World Bank estimates); food inflation at 105%

Rial exchange rate: Above 1.4 million to the US dollar (pre-war 2026); crossed 1 million rials/USD in March 2025

Fiscal deficit: Exceeding 10% of GDP

GDP projection: Contraction of 2.8% in 2026 (pre-war; current estimates substantially worse)

Oil export revenue (IRGC-controlled share): ~50%

Iranian crude reaching China (Feb 28–Mar 15): ~11.7 million barrels

Chinese crude imports from Iran (Jan–Feb 2026): ~1.13–1.20 million barrels/day

Poverty rate: 22–50% of population below poverty line (March 2025 estimates)

Malnutrition: 57% of Iranians experiencing some level of food insecurity (Ministry of Social Welfare)

What Mojtaba Khamenei’s Nowruz slogan is attempting is a political reframing of this bifurcation — presenting the civilian economy’s hardship not as evidence of state failure, but as collective sacrifice in a national security emergency. The framing has precedent: during the eight-year Iran-Iraq War, genuine popular solidarity was mobilized behind extraordinary material deprivation. Khamenei’s message explicitly invoked this memory, praising citizens who “combined fasting with jihad and established an extensive defensive line across the country.”

The critical variable is whether that solidarity holds. The January 2026 protests — which spread to all 31 provinces, driven initially by rial devaluation and food prices — demonstrated that the social contract is under severe stress. Those protests were suppressed by force. But the economic pressures that ignited them have intensified, not eased. Senior economist Masoud Nili, advisor to former president Rouhani, described the Iranian economy in April 2025 as “fundamentally broken from decades of corruption, lack of productivity, and over-reliance” on oil — a diagnosis that wartime mobilization cannot address.

The regime’s enduring wager, as one analyst put it precisely, is that the IRGC’s loyalty can be secured financially even as the civilian population bears the hardship. That calculation holds as long as shadow oil revenues continue to flow. Should the United States succeed in decisively disrupting the China-Iran oil corridor — through expanded secondary sanctions on Chinese entities or operational pressure on the shadow fleet — the arithmetic changes fundamentally.

What This Means for Global Energy, Oil Prices, and the New Multipolar Order

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz — through which roughly 20% of global oil supplies and significant LNG volumes normally transit — has produced what the IEA characterizes as the single largest supply disruption in the history of global oil markets. Brent crude surged from approximately $60 per barrel in January 2026 to above $100 within weeks of the February 28 outbreak of full-scale war. The IEA’s emergency release of 400 million barrels from strategic reserves — the largest such intervention in the agency’s history — has stabilized but not normalized markets.

The geopolitical implications extend well beyond oil prices. Tehran’s decision to allow Chinese tankers passage through the Strait while excluding Western shipping — and its reported consideration of opening the waterway to vessels agreeing to settle oil trades in yuan rather than dollars — represents the most operationally specific challenge to petrodollar dominance since that system was established in the 1970s. Previous de-dollarization discussions were theoretical. This one comes with a chokepoint, an operational shadow fleet, a functioning alternative payment infrastructure in yuan, and a geopolitical crisis without a clear resolution timeline.

China’s CIPS processed $245 trillion in 2025. The mBridge multi-CBDC platform — involving China, Hong Kong, Thailand, UAE, and Saudi Arabia — had surpassed $55 billion in transaction volume by early 2026. These are not yet existential challenges to the dollar-dominated system, which still handles roughly 89% of global foreign exchange trading. But they create the “leakage” infrastructure that complicates sanctions enforcement and, critically, demonstrates to middle powers watching the crisis that alternatives exist.

For Gulf states, the calculus is particularly complex. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have alternative, albeit limited, export routes that bypass Hormuz. But the damage to regional energy facilities and strategic commercial ports could cost $25 billion to repair, and the war risk premiums being absorbed by Asian importers — China, Japan, South Korea, and India account for 75% of the strait’s oil exports and 59% of its LNG — are already reshaping long-term supply contracts and accelerating the search for both alternative routes and alternative energy sources.

The 1970s energy crisis analogy is instructive but imperfect. That shock was primarily about price. This one involves price, sanctions architecture, payment system legitimacy, and great-power positioning simultaneously — a compound crisis that will outlast any ceasefire.

Can the Resistance Economy Outlast the Next Round of Maximum Pressure?

The answer depends on three variables whose trajectories are currently unknowable with precision.

First: the China-Iran oil corridor. Tehran is not surviving on ideology. It is surviving on approximately 1.1–1.5 million barrels per day of crude flowing to Chinese refineries, settled in yuan, through shadow infrastructure. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent signaled in mid-March 2026 that Washington might consider easing sanctions on some Iranian oil to relieve global energy pressures — a remarkable acknowledgment that the leverage operates in both directions. If the US tightens enforcement sufficiently to disrupt this corridor, the IRGC’s parallel economy begins to fracture. If it cannot, Iran sustains Hormuz pressure through the summer refill season and beyond.

Second: domestic political cohesion. Mojtaba Khamenei’s Nowruz message is as much a political document as an economic one. Analysts at the Eurasia Review note that his framing of the resistance economy is “overtly political — going beyond a mere mobilizing slogan” to “transform the economy into a function of internal steadfastness during wartime.” His legitimacy depends on persuading Iranians that this hardship is meaningful sacrifice, not elite mismanagement. A new supreme leader who has never appeared in public video since assuming power, consolidating authority after a dynastic succession that many Iranians view skeptically, faces an unusually fragile political foundation from which to ask for patience.

Third: the sanctions playbook of other pariah states. Iran is observing, and presumably learning from, Venezuela — whose president Nicolás Maduro was captured by the United States in January 2026, disrupting another important node in Iran’s sanctions evasion network. Russia’s experience — sustaining a war economy under sanctions by deploying similar shadow fleet tactics, yuan settlement, and BRICS payment infrastructure — offers both a model and a cautionary tale. Moscow’s resilience has been real but costly; its long-term growth trajectory has been fundamentally damaged.

Scenario Table: Iran’s Economic Trajectories, 2026–2028

Scenario	Trigger Conditions	Economic Outcome	Probability Assessment
Managed Survival	Shadow oil flows intact; ceasefire within 6 months; partial Hormuz reopening	Inflation stabilizes 40–50%; GDP contracts 3–5%; IRGC economy intact	Moderate
Prolonged Attrition	Hormuz partially open; secondary sanctions tighten but don’t sever China corridor	Inflation 55–70%; GDP contracts 6–9%; civilian economy deteriorates sharply	Moderate-High
Escalation Spiral	Hormuz fully closed 6+ months; Chinese entities sanctioned; shadow fleet disrupted	GDP contraction 12–15%; IRGC economy fractures; social stability threatened	Low-Moderate
Negotiated Off-Ramp	US-Iran back-channel deal; partial sanctions relief for Hormuz opening	Inflation relief; oil export recovery; structural IRGC dominance unchanged	Low (near-term)

Implications for 2026–2028

Tehran is not merely surviving. It is adapting in ways that will reshape the global sanctions playbook — and the task for policymakers, investors, and strategic analysts is to understand the adaptation, not merely to condemn the crisis.

For global energy markets: The Hormuz disruption has demonstrated the extraordinary fragility of the physical infrastructure underlying the global oil system. The political will to rebuild credible naval deterrence in the Gulf — already strained before the war — will face sustained testing. European energy security, already reshaped by Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, faces another structural adjustment: the realistic possibility that Hormuz transit could be weaponized again, on shorter notice, in future crises.

For the dollar-based financial system: The yuan oil settlement experiment is not a revolution. The dollar’s structural advantages — deep capital markets, rule of law, network effects — remain overwhelming. But Iran has demonstrated that the yuan-CIPS-mBridge infrastructure is operationally ready for crisis conditions. Each future sanctions confrontation will have this precedent available to actors seeking to evade dollar-denominated pressure. The marginal cost of sanctions evasion has fallen.

For the IRGC’s economic empire: The war has almost certainly accelerated the IRGC’s capture of what remains of Iran’s formal economy. As private businesses collapse under inflation and supply chain disruption, IRGC-linked entities — with their shadow trade routes, currency access, and political protection — absorb the wreckage. Post-war reconstruction, whenever it comes, will flow through the same institutions. The long-term growth trap this creates — an economy dominated by rent-seeking military-commercial conglomerates rather than competitive private enterprise — is the structural wound that no slogan, however elegantly framed, can heal.

For Iran’s people: The resistance economy’s deepest trade-off is rarely stated plainly in official communications. Self-sufficiency built on IRGC monopolies is not the same as national economic resilience. An economy in which 57% of citizens face malnutrition, the currency has lost 20,000 times its pre-revolutionary value, and food inflation runs at 105% is not resisting. It is enduring. The distinction matters enormously for the 90 million Iranians whose daily experience of the resistance economy is hunger, unemployment, and rolling blackouts — not the conceptual elegance of yuan settlement systems and shadow fleet logistics.

Mojtaba Khamenei, reading out his Nowruz message through a state television anchor while the world wondered whether he was even physically present, declared that his enemies had “been defeated.” The rial, the empty shelves, and the 7 million Iranians reported to have gone hungry tell a different story — one that the resistance economy, in all its strategic ingenuity, has yet to answer.

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Up Next

Fractional Investing Singapore 2026: Who’s Winning the Race to the Bottom Dollar?

Don't Miss

Eurozone Borrowing Costs Surge to Multi-Decade Highs as Iran Shock Threatens a Fiscal ‘Vicious Circle’

Click to comment

Analysis

Strait of Hormuz 2026: Why Markets Still Don’t Trust It’s Open

Published

10 hours ago

July 11, 2026

Abdul Rahman

If you’ve followed headlines about the Strait of Hormuz over the past several months, you’d be forgiven for losing track of whether it’s actually open. That confusion isn’t a media failure — it genuinely has opened, closed, and reopened multiple times since the conflict began, and the pattern itself is the real story markets need to understand, far more than any single day’s price move.

A Timeline That Explains the Market’s Persistent Skepticism

The crisis began February 28, 2026, when US and Israeli military operations against Iran triggered Iranian retaliation, including drone, ballistic missile, and small-boat attacks on vessels attempting to transit the Strait (Brookings). By March 4, Iranian forces formally declared the Strait “closed.” Insurance for transiting vessels became unavailable or prohibitively expensive, and seafarers largely refused the journey — meaning the Strait was effectively shut even without a formal blockade in the technical sense (Brookings).

What followed was a genuinely chaotic sequence that explains why traders remain reluctant to fully price in a resolution even now. On April 9, there was no sign an earlier agreement to lift the blockade was actually being implemented — ships were once again prevented from passing. Abu Dhabi National Oil Company’s CEO confirmed the Strait remained closed despite an announced ceasefire, noting 230 loaded oil tankers were waiting inside the Gulf (Wikipedia — 2026 Strait of Hormuz crisis). On April 17, Iran’s foreign minister announced the Strait was open to all shipping — oil prices dropped 11% immediately following the announcement. The very next day, April 18, Iran closed it again, citing the US refusal to lift its own naval blockade in response.

Even the June 17 memorandum of understanding between Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian to formally end the war and the blockades didn’t hold cleanly: on June 20, Iran said it had closed the Strait again, citing continued Israeli strikes in southern Lebanon as a violation of the broader ceasefire agreement — a claim the US military denied (Wikipedia). By June 27, the US Navy’s Joint Maritime Information Center announced a widened shipping route through the Strait near Oman, an action explicitly framed as challenging Iran’s control over the waterway rather than a clean bilateral resolution.

Why This Chokepoint Matters More Than Any Other Piece of Global Infrastructure

Approximately 20 million barrels of oil per day move through the Strait of Hormuz — roughly 20% of global seaborne oil trade and about 27% of the world’s maritime crude oil and petroleum product trade combined (Congressional Research Service). At its narrowest point, the Strait is just 33-34 kilometers wide, split into two unidirectional two-mile-wide shipping lanes separated by a two-mile buffer zone sitting entirely within Iranian and Omani territorial waters (Congressional Research Service).

Critically, no rerouting option exists that can replace this volume at comparable cost. An extended full closure would remove 17-21 million barrels from daily global supply against total world consumption of roughly 100 million barrels per day — a supply shock with no readily available substitute (Ziro Market).

The Damage Already Done, Even With Partial Reopening

The International Energy Agency characterized the disruption as the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market (Wikipedia — Economic impact of the 2026 Iran war). At peak conflict intensity in February-March 2026, Brent crude surged well above $120 per barrel. As ceasefire talks progressed through May and June, prices retreated significantly — falling to around $95-100 per barrel by early June, and briefly dipping to $78.24 per barrel by mid-June, the lowest level since March 3, before the framework agreement was formally signed (Al Jazeera).

But the ripple effects extend well beyond crude oil pricing. The Strait closure disrupted roughly 45% of global sulfur supply — critical for fertilizer production, copper industry metal leaching, and sulfuric acid manufacturing — and constrained helium supply, a commodity essential to semiconductor manufacturing (Wikipedia — Economic impact). Shipping companies including Maersk, CMA CGM, and Hapag-Lloyd suspended transits through the Strait and related routes like the Red Sea entirely, forcing rerouting around the Cape of Good Hope that added two to three weeks to journey times and increased per-shipment costs by 30-50% (Ziro Market).

Europe’s Quieter But Deeper Crisis

While oil price headlines dominated coverage, Europe faced an arguably more severe parallel crisis through the suspension of Qatari liquefied natural gas exports combined with the Strait closure — hitting at the worst possible moment, with European gas storage sitting at just 30% capacity following a harsh 2025-2026 winter. Dutch TTF gas benchmarks nearly doubled to over €60/MWh by mid-March (Wikipedia — Economic impact).

The European Central Bank responded by postponing planned interest rate reductions on March 19, simultaneously raising its 2026 inflation forecast and cutting GDP growth projections, with UK inflation specifically projected to breach 5% during 2026. Chemical and steel manufacturers across the UK and EU imposed surcharges of up to 30% to offset surging electricity costs, and the ECB explicitly warned that a prolonged conflict risked pushing major energy-dependent economies, including Germany and Italy, into technical recession by year-end.

Why OPEC+ Couldn’t Simply Fill the Gap

A natural question is why Saudi Arabia and the UAE — the two largest Gulf Cooperation Council producers with meaningful spare capacity — didn’t simply increase output to compensate. The answer is logistical rather than a lack of willingness: the Strait closure itself limited their ability to actually export any increased production volumes, even when pumping more oil, because the export bottleneck was the same chokepoint causing the broader crisis (Ziro Market). Total OPEC country production fell more than 30% since the start of the war, and the region’s spare capacity — the traditional shock absorber for global oil markets — proved largely irrelevant when the actual export route itself was under attack (Brookings).

US shale producers, meanwhile, responded more slowly to the price signal than historical patterns would predict. Rig counts stayed largely steady through April 2026, though well-completion activity in the Permian Basin did rise roughly 20% over several weeks as previously drilled wells came into production — still below pre-pandemic activity levels overall (Brookings).

The Market Is Still Pricing a Discount for Uncertainty, and Analysts Say That’s Correct

Vandana Hari, founder of Singapore-based Vanda Insights, offered perhaps the most useful framing for understanding current market behavior: crude’s slide following the memorandum of understanding is “entirely sentiment-driven,” with markets front-running the prospective reopening and likely pricing in a best-case scenario for normalized flows — meaning potential hiccups, from logistics to renewed geopolitical tensions, aren’t being adequately factored in (Al Jazeera).

Given the actual track record — multiple announced reopenings followed by renewed closures throughout April and June — that skepticism looks well-founded rather than excessive.

What This Means for Businesses and Investors Going Forward

For companies with Gulf-dependent supply chains: Treat any single reopening announcement as provisional rather than a genuine all-clear, given the pattern of reversals throughout the spring. Maintaining rerouting contingency plans and insurance flexibility remains prudent even after formal ceasefire signings.

For inflation-sensitive investors and central bank watchers: The relationship Ziro Market’s analysis highlights is worth internalizing directly: whether oil settles near $80-85 (supporting rate cuts, lower CPI, stronger oil-importing currencies) or spikes back toward $120 (elevated inflation, delayed rate cuts) functions as a genuine macro regime switch — not a marginal input, but potentially the single largest swing factor for 2026 global monetary policy.

For commodity-exposed sectors beyond energy: The sulfur, fertilizer, and helium supply disruptions are underappreciated second-order effects that specifically hit agriculture and semiconductor manufacturing — sectors not typically associated with Middle East conflict risk but directly exposed through this specific chokepoint.

The Bottom Line

The Strait of Hormuz crisis of 2026 has been less a single supply shock than a recurring pattern of partial resolutions and renewed disruptions, and that pattern itself is the most important thing for markets and businesses to understand going forward. Prices have retreated substantially from their conflict-peak highs, and the June 17 memorandum of understanding represents genuine diplomatic progress. But given that the Strait has been declared “open” and then closed again multiple times within the same several-week windows, treating the current relative calm as a durable resolution — rather than the latest phase in an ongoing negotiation — would be a mistake that both markets and policymakers seem determined not to repeat.

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

AI

AI Capex Bubble 2026: The Hidden $662B Debt Nobody Reports

Published

10 hours ago

July 11, 2026

Abdul Rahman

Every earnings season now brings a fresh wave of headlines about hyperscaler AI capital expenditure hitting a new record. The “big four” — Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, and Meta — are on track to spend roughly $725 billion combined in 2026, a 77% jump from the $410 billion deployed in 2025 (UnboxFuture). That number gets reported constantly. What almost nobody is reporting with the same prominence is a separate figure that may matter more: roughly $662 billion in data center lease commitments that hyperscalers have already signed but not yet begun — obligations that currently sit entirely off balance sheet.

Why the Off-Balance-Sheet Number Changes the Whole Picture

Under GAAP accounting rules governing when a lease “commences,” these signed-but-not-started commitments don’t appear in the capital expenditure figures analysts and investors typically scrutinize when assessing hyperscaler financial health. According to reporting citing Moody’s early-2026 analysis, this shadow liability is larger than the combined on-balance-sheet debt of the same companies (Anomaly Investments).

That detail matters enormously for one specific argument AI infrastructure bulls have relied on: the claim that this buildout is being conservatively self-funded from operating cash flow rather than risky leverage. Once the full picture of committed-but-unrecognized obligations is accounted for, that defense becomes much harder to sustain.

The Debt Is Already Showing Up, Not Just Theoretical

This isn’t a purely hypothetical concern about future liabilities. Big tech companies have already issued more than $100 billion of bonds in 2026 specifically to help fund AI capital expenditure, and investors have responded by demanding record levels of protection against potential defaults through credit default swaps — essentially insurance policies against bond default (IEEE ComSoc).

Individual company examples illustrate the shift toward leverage: Oracle issued an $18 billion bond specifically tied to its data center expansion; CoreWeave secured a $2.6 billion loan alongside a $1.75 billion bond package; and OpenAI and Oracle reportedly entered into a $100 billion vendor financing arrangement (Anomaly Investments). At Amazon specifically, capital expenditure over the trailing twelve months has reached $151 billion — a figure that now exceeds the company’s entire operating cash flow, pushing free cash flow into negative territory.

The Depreciation Assumption Almost No Coverage Questions

Here’s an angle genuinely underexplored across most financial media: the depreciation schedules hyperscalers use for AI hardware assume a five-to-six-year useful life. But given how rapidly GPU generations are turning over and how intensively AI workloads are pushing hardware utilization, critics argue the real economic life of this equipment is closer to two to three years. That gap between assumed and actual depreciation is estimated to understate true asset depletion by roughly $176 billion between 2026 and 2028 alone — a figure that grows as accelerating token consumption pushes hardware utilization beyond the assumptions built into current depreciation schedules (Anomaly Investments).

Layered on top of that is the energy cost curve: running the current roughly 30-gigawatt installed base of AI infrastructure costs approximately $27 billion annually today, but that figure is projected to climb to between $45 and $90 billion per year as capacity scales toward 2029 — and crucially, these are first charges against revenue, not optional or deferrable costs.

The Revenue Gap: Who’s Actually Paying for All This?

The most commonly cited justification for the capex surge is that the pure-play AI vendors — OpenAI, Anthropic, and others — represent a massive and rapidly growing revenue opportunity. The reality is more nuanced. OpenAI’s roughly $20 billion annualized revenue run rate, while genuinely impressive for a company with barely any consumer products three years ago, represents only about 3% of projected 2026 hyperscaler capex. Anthropic’s roughly $9 billion run rate, despite showing 9x year-over-year growth, occupies a similarly small share. The entire cohort of pure-play AI vendors combined — including Cohere, Mistral, Perplexity, and others — likely accounts for less than $35 billion in projected combined 2026 revenue against a hyperscaler capex figure exceeding $700 billion (Futurum Group).

That gap is the crux of the bubble debate: hyperscalers are betting the infrastructure will ultimately serve enterprise adoption and their own AI services broadly, not just third-party AI vendor revenue — but that bet requires enterprise AI monetization to arrive at a scale that, as of mid-2026, remains largely unproven outside of code generation and basic customer service automation.

The Skeptic’s Case, From Inside Goldman Sachs Itself

The most prominent voice of institutional skepticism doesn’t come from an outside critic — it comes from within Goldman Sachs itself. Jim Covello, the bank’s Head of Global Equity Research, has consistently argued the economics of the generative AI transition are fundamentally flawed, stating in mid-2026 that the industry has moved “further away” from justifying the scale of capital expenditure compared to two years prior (UnboxFuture). Covello has specifically flagged circular capital flows between cloud providers and AI startups — where hyperscalers invest in AI companies that then spend that same capital purchasing compute from those same hyperscalers — as a red flag reminiscent of vendor financing patterns seen in the dot-com era.

The valuation comparison to that era is explicit and increasingly common among strategists: US technology and AI equities carry EV/EBITDA multiples near 25x, close to historical extremes and above the telecom valuations that preceded the 2000 dot-com peak. More specifically, capex is currently expanding roughly 46 percentage points faster than revenue growth — a gap that exceeds the 32-point divergence observed during the 2001 telecom excess cycle (Allianz Research). Separately, Bank of America strategists have pointed out that AI stock concentration has reached levels matching prior bubble peaks, with the “AI Big 10” (Nvidia, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Apple, Tesla, Broadcom, Micron, and AMD) now making up 41% of the S&P 500 — comparable to the concentration of tech and telecom stocks during the actual dot-com bubble (Yahoo Finance).

The Bull Case Isn’t Naive Either

It would be inaccurate to frame this purely as informed skeptics versus blind enthusiasm. Goldman Sachs’ own broader research (distinct from Covello’s individual view) models roughly $7.6 trillion in cumulative AI capital expenditure between 2026 and 2031, built on the expectation that token consumption will increase 24-fold by 2030, driven largely by enterprise AI agents becoming embedded in production workflows rather than remaining experimental (Sesame Disk / Goldman commentary). Microsoft has disclosed an $80 billion backlog of Azure orders it currently cannot fulfill due to power constraints — genuine evidence that demand, at least for existing capacity, is outpacing even the current aggressive build-out pace (Futurum Group).

Leverage levels also remain more conservative than headlines suggest in absolute terms: the top five US capex providers reported a combined $385 billion in debt at the end of 2025, with leverage ratios still roughly 20% below the “high spender” cohort from the 2000 dot-com peak, according to Allianz Research analysis — meaning rising debt levels are a trend worth monitoring closely, not yet an acute crisis.

What Happens If the Bubble Skeptics Are Right

Historical infrastructure cycles offer a specific and somewhat counterintuitive lesson: the investors who fund the initial frenzied build-out phase rarely capture the long-term rewards. If the AI capex cycle follows the pattern of the 1998-2001 fiber optic buildout, hyperscalers may eventually be forced to write down the value of data centers and GPUs purchased at today’s prices and utilization assumptions. But that collapse in computing costs, paradoxically, could pave the way for a new generation of leaner, genuinely profitable software companies to build on top of the resulting cheap, overbuilt infrastructure — much as fiber-optic overbuild eventually enabled the 2000s streaming and cloud computing boom, even after the original telecom investors were wiped out.

What This Means for Investors and Businesses

For equity investors, the practical signal to watch isn’t the headline capex number — it’s the widening gap between capex growth and revenue growth, and whether that gap begins narrowing through 2027 as enterprise adoption either accelerates or disappoints. For businesses evaluating AI vendor relationships, the circular-financing pattern flagged by Covello is worth diligence: understanding whether an AI vendor’s revenue depends partly on capital originally supplied by the same hyperscaler providing its compute is a legitimate red flag for assessing that vendor’s underlying financial independence. For fixed-income investors, the rising credit default swap pricing on hyperscaler-linked debt is itself a market signal worth tracking as an early indicator of shifting sentiment, independent of equity price action.

The Bottom Line

The AI infrastructure buildout genuinely is the largest corporate capital expenditure cycle in recorded history, and it’s happening for real, defensible reasons tied to a genuine technology shift. But the debate over whether it constitutes a bubble isn’t really about whether AI technology is useful — it’s about whether the timing of returns can keep pace with public equity markets’ patience, and whether the $662 billion in off-balance-sheet lease commitments, aggressive depreciation assumptions, and circular vendor financing arrangements represent manageable financial engineering or the early architecture of a genuinely serious correction. Both cases have real evidence behind them. What’s clear is that the headline capex figure everyone quotes is no longer the most important number in this story.

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Markets & Finance

Gold Overtakes US Treasuries in Reserves: What It Means

Published

10 hours ago

July 11, 2026

Abdul Rahman

Most gold coverage in 2026 has fixated on the price chart — the spectacular run from roughly $2,633 an ounce at the start of the year to fresh record highs above $5,400 by mid-year (Intellectia). That’s a legitimate story. But it’s not the most important one. The more consequential shift is structural, not seasonal: gold has overtaken US Treasuries as the largest share of global central bank reserves for the first time in three decades (BlackRock).

That’s not a headline about a commodity rally. It’s a headline about the architecture of the global monetary system quietly shifting under everyone’s feet.

The Trigger Most Coverage Undersells

The pivotal moment behind this shift traces back to 2022, when roughly $300 billion of Russian central bank foreign exchange reserves were frozen as part of international sanctions following the invasion of Ukraine (ISA Bullion). For reserve managers around the world — not just in Russia — that event functioned as a wake-up call: dollar-denominated assets held abroad are not unconditionally safe from geopolitical sanctions risk. Gold, by contrast, carries no counterparty risk; nobody can freeze a gold bar sitting in a country’s own vault.

That single realization has reshaped reserve management strategy globally. Central bank gold purchases averaged 225 tonnes per quarter between 2021 and 2025 — roughly double the pace seen from 2016 to 2020 (J.P. Morgan Global Research). BRICS+ nations now hold 17.4% of global gold reserves, up sharply from just 11.2% in 2019 (ISA Bullion).

Who’s Actually Buying, and Why the List Matters

Poland has been the standout accumulator, adding 20.2 tonnes in February 2026 alone, another 11.2 tonnes in March, and 14 tonnes in April — extending a rapid buildup that has added more than 360 tonnes to its reserves since 2023 (BestBrokers). China’s central bank maintained consecutive monthly gold purchases for 19 straight months through May 2026, even though much of this buying goes officially unreported to the IMF — analysts widely believe the People’s Bank of China continues accumulating gold “off the books” (ISA Bullion).

China’s motivation appears explicitly strategic rather than opportunistic. Chinese net gold imports jumped to 317 tonnes in the first quarter of 2026 alone — nearly triple the prior quarter — while the People’s Bank of China’s own reported purchases accelerated from roughly one tonne per month through February to eight tonnes in April (J.P. Morgan Global Research). J.P. Morgan’s own analysts frame this as part of a long-term Chinese project to build gold reserves as a foundation for establishing the renminbi as a credible alternative reserve currency.

A World Gold Council survey found a striking 95% of central banks expect to increase their gold holdings in 2026, up from 81% in 2024 and just 52% in 2021 — a trajectory showing accelerating, not plateauing, institutional conviction (BlackRock).

The Part of the Story Most Coverage Misses: Not Everyone Is Buying

Here’s an angle that gets consistently underplayed: this isn’t a uniform global stampede into gold. Several countries, including Singapore, Jordan, Mexico, and the Solomon Islands, actually reduced their gold reserves in 2025 — Singapore in particular emerged as a notable seller, likely driven by portfolio rebalancing decisions and a desire to realize gains after gold’s historic surge, rather than any lack of confidence in the metal (BestBrokers). Germany, for its part, has reduced its gold holdings every year since at least 2002, though its 2024 sale of just 1.1 tonnes was the smallest annual reduction on record.

This nuance matters for anyone trying to build a genuinely accurate picture: the de-dollarization and gold-accumulation trend is heavily concentrated among specific emerging-market and non-aligned economies — not a universal central bank consensus. Understanding which countries are buying and why is more analytically useful than simply citing an aggregate global purchasing figure.

Where Forecasts Diverge — And Why the Spread Is So Wide

Institutional price forecasts for gold currently show a genuinely unusual spread. J.P. Morgan projects gold reaching $6,000 an ounce by the end of 2026, and potentially $6,300 by the end of 2027 (J.P. Morgan Global Research). Morgan Stanley’s more conservative 2026 forecast sits at $4,400 an ounce (Morgan Stanley), while State Street projects a range of $4,750 to $5,500, and DWS targets $5,400 by mid-2027 (Discovery Alert).

A spread exceeding $1,500 per ounce between the most bullish and most conservative institutional forecasts reflects a genuine, unresolved analytical disagreement — not just differing house styles. The bull case rests on the idea that central bank reserve diversification represents a structural, policy-level shift rather than opportunistic market timing, making it fundamentally different from prior gold cycles driven mainly by retail or momentum investors. The more cautious case notes that gold’s roughly 245% rally from September 2022 to January 2026 is the largest percentage advance in modern gold market history — and historically, rallies of that magnitude have eventually triggered significant, multi-year corrections (Discovery Alert).

The Under-Discussed New Buyer: Stablecoin Issuers

One of the least-covered developments in this entire gold story is the emergence of stablecoin issuers as a genuinely new category of gold demand. As crypto markets have matured, some stablecoin issuers have begun holding gold as part of their reserve backing strategy — a development BlackRock specifically flags as part of the “early stages” of a new demand wave that also includes central banks and the broader AI infrastructure buildout’s effect on institutional portfolio hedging behavior (BlackRock).

What This Means for Different Audiences

For everyday investors: Gold ETPs still make up only about 0.17% of total US private financial assets, remaining well below prior peaks seen in the early 2010s, while private wealth gold allocations globally sit roughly 50% below levels seen a decade ago (BlackRock). That suggests meaningful room for incremental Western retail and institutional demand to grow, even after the current rally, if the structural de-dollarization narrative continues to gain mainstream acceptance.

For businesses managing currency exposure: The scale and persistence of central bank gold buying is one of several signals (alongside Fed communication policy changes and fiscal deficit concerns) suggesting continued structural pressure on the US dollar’s long-term reserve currency dominance — a trend worth factoring into multi-year currency hedging strategies rather than treating as a short-term news cycle.

For portfolio allocators: The unusually wide spread between institutional forecasts is itself useful information — it suggests treating any single gold price target as a scenario input rather than a confident base case, and sizing gold allocations based on its role as a portfolio diversifier and inflation/geopolitical hedge rather than as a directional price bet.

The Bottom Line

The gold price chart is the story most people are watching. The reserve-composition shift is the story that actually matters for the long-term structure of global finance. Gold surpassing US Treasuries as the largest share of central bank reserves for the first time since 1996 is a genuinely historic threshold — one triggered specifically by the 2022 Russian asset freeze and now sustained by a broad, if uneven, cohort of emerging-market central banks pursuing deliberate de-dollarization strategies. Whether the price keeps climbing toward J.P. Morgan’s $6,000 target or cools toward Morgan Stanley’s more conservative range matters less, in the long run, than the structural fact that the world’s reserve managers have permanently changed how they think about gold’s role in the global financial system.