Oil Prices Set to Skyrocket as Iran Closes Strait of Hormuz Following US-Israel Strikes

Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz after US-Israel strikes on February 28, 2026. With 20% of global oil supply at risk, Brent crude—trading at $72.87 before markets close—could surge to $100–$140. Here’s what it means for the global economy.

On the morning of February 28, 2026, smoke was still rising above Tehran when the world’s most consequential maritime chokepoint fell silent to commercial tankers. Iran’s state-run Tasnim News Agency confirmed what oil traders had dreaded for decades: the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow 21-mile-wide waterway through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s entire oil supply flows daily, has been closed in the wake of coordinated US-Israel strikes on Iranian military and governmental targets. Markets are not yet open — they will be on Monday — but the tremors are already being felt across futures exchanges, commodities desks, and the corridors of OPEC ministries from Riyadh to Abu Dhabi.

This is not merely a geopolitical crisis. It is a potential structural rupture in the architecture of global energy supply.

What Happened: The Strikes That Changed Everything

Shortly before dawn on Saturday, US President Donald Trump announced what he called “major combat operations” in Iran, saying the US military, acting in coordination with Israel, was targeting Iran’s missile industry, leadership infrastructure, and defense installations. Multiple cities, including Tehran, Shiraz, and Isfahan, reported explosions. Iran’s foreign minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, denounced the assault as “wholly unprovoked, illegal, and illegitimate,” and confirmed that Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the president remained alive. Iran swiftly launched retaliatory missiles toward Israeli territory.

The strikes came after diplomatic talks in Geneva — mediated by Oman’s Foreign Minister — failed to produce a nuclear agreement. Reuters reported that some of the world’s largest oil majors and trading houses had already suspended crude shipments through the strait within hours of the attacks, citing four trading sources. Iran’s Tasnim News Agency subsequently confirmed the Strait of Hormuz had been closed, invoking what analysts call the “Hormuz card” — a threat Tehran has held, and never previously played in full, for nearly four decades.

President Trump’s own video address that morning had specifically called for neutralizing Iran’s navy, a signal, analysts note, that Washington anticipated Tehran would reach for its most powerful economic weapon.

The Strait of Hormuz: Why This Chokepoint Has No Equal

To understand the magnitude of what is unfolding, it is worth stepping back from the headlines and examining the geography of global energy.

The Strait of Hormuz sits between Iran to the north and Oman to the south, connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and, ultimately, to the Indian Ocean and global markets. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), approximately 20 million barrels of oil and petroleum products transited the strait daily in 2024, representing close to 20 percent of global liquid oil consumption. Bloomberg notes the strait handles roughly a quarter of the world’s entire seaborne oil trade. Market intelligence firm Kpler puts seaborne crude flows alone at around 13 million barrels per day in 2025, accounting for roughly 31 percent of global seaborne crude.

The strait also carries 22 percent of global LNG trade, making it uniquely critical for both oil-importing nations in Asia and gas-dependent economies in Europe.

Unlike the Suez Canal or even the Red Sea — where Houthi disruptions over the past year prompted painful but ultimately navigable rerouting — the Strait of Hormuz has no viable alternative. Existing pipeline capacity can divert only a fraction of these flows. ING Group’s commodities strategy team calculates that even accounting for all available pipeline diversions, approximately 9 million barrels per day of crude oil and 6 million barrels per day of refined products remain fully exposed to disruption if the strait is compromised.

As one Foreign Policy analysis put it bluntly: “Unlike the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, Hormuz does not have any real alternatives.”

Oil Price Forecasts: From $72 to $140 — What Analysts Say

Scenario	Brent Crude Forecast	Source
Pre-strike baseline (Feb 28 close)	$72.87/bbl	Market data
Partial disruption / tanker harassment	$80–$100/bbl	ING Group, Lombard Odier
Iranian export infrastructure damaged	~$90/bbl peak, then retreat	Goldman Sachs
Full Hormuz blockade (sustained)	$120–$140/bbl	J.P. Morgan, ING Group
Worst-case: regime collapse scenario	$110+/bbl sustained	Nomura, Business Standard

Brent crude closed 2.87 percent higher at $72.87 per barrel on Friday, and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) ended at $67.02, both reflecting mounting risk premiums even before the strikes were confirmed, according to The National. On decentralized exchange Hyperliquid, oil-linked perpetual futures had already surged more than 5 percent in overnight trading, with one contract advancing above $86, per CoinDesk.

Vandana Hari, chief executive of Singapore-based Vanda Insights, told The National she expected prices to jump to $80 per barrel in a “knee-jerk reaction” if the war continues into Monday’s open. Swiss bank Lombard Odier estimated that a prolonged disruption to the Strait of Hormuz could produce a temporary spike to $100 per barrel or beyond. J.P. Morgan’s analysis, cited by TheStreet, warned that a full blockade could push prices to $120–$130 per barrel.

ING Group’s Warren Patterson, head of commodities strategy, is starker still: a successful sustained blockade would push Brent to $140 per barrel, at which point “higher prices would be needed to ensure demand destruction” — the brutal market mechanism where consumption collapses because it becomes unaffordable.

The current geopolitical risk premium already embedded in the oil price is estimated at $10 per barrel by ING and Goldman Sachs, meaning that in a scenario where tensions de-escalate rapidly — if, say, a ceasefire is announced — a pullback of $10 or more is equally possible.

Cause and Consequence: What Triggered This and Who Moved First

The strikes of February 28 did not emerge from a vacuum. Diplomatic talks between the US and Iran had been ongoing through February, mediated by Oman in Geneva, with both sides reportedly making “significant progress” on nuclear issues as recently as Thursday. But Trump had set an aggressive deadline — one the Iranian side was either unable or unwilling to meet in full. Washington’s core demands included a complete cessation of uranium enrichment, the handover of enriched stockpiles, limits on ballistic missile development, and an end to support for regional proxies. Tehran, which insists its nuclear program is civilian in nature, sought to retain limited enrichment rights and the lifting of crippling economic sanctions.

When those talks adjourned without a deal, US and Israeli forces moved.

Critically, Trump stated in his video address that the objective was to “eliminate imminent threats from the Iranian regime” and called on the Iranian military to stand down — language that many analysts interpreted as signaling a potential regime-change goal rather than a limited deterrent strike. That distinction matters enormously for the oil market. A regime-change campaign would imply a prolonged conflict, greater Iranian desperation, and a far higher probability that Tehran actually uses the Hormuz card, rather than merely threatening it.

Ripple Effects: Inflation, Shipping, and the Global Consumer

The economic consequences of a prolonged Hormuz disruption would radiate far beyond the pump price.

Inflation: Rising oil prices feed directly into consumer price indices through transportation, manufacturing, and energy costs. CNBC noted that higher energy costs would make it harder for central banks to cut borrowing costs or support growth — particularly painful for economies already navigating elevated debt loads. In the United States, which heads into mid-term elections later in 2026, the political sensitivity of energy price spikes adds a layer of domestic constraint on the administration’s options.

Shipping: Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC) rates on Middle East-to-China routes had already tripled since the start of 2026, exceeding $150,000 per day — the highest since 2020. A Hormuz closure would send these rates into uncharted territory. Iran’s “shadow fleet,” which accounts for roughly 18 percent of global tanker capacity, has already seen 86 percent of its vessels targeted by US sanctions, further tightening the available shipping pool.

LNG markets: If Hormuz is disrupted, global LNG prices could retest the record highs of 2022, according to analysts cited by Reuters. For European nations that spent 2022–2023 rewiring their gas import infrastructure away from Russia, this would be a second consecutive energy shock within four years.

Insurance premiums: Maritime war risk insurance costs are expected to spike by 200–400 percent in a sustained disruption scenario, per Mirae Asset Sharekhan analysts, adding further cost to every barrel that does manage to move through alternative routes.

The Global Stakes: China, India, and Europe in the Crosshairs

No economy faces a more direct exposure to Hormuz disruption than China. Over 80 percent of Iran’s oil exports are bound for Chinese refineries, and China’s total Gulf crude imports — from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the UAE, and Kuwait combined — transit the strait entirely. Beijing has spent the past two years quietly building strategic oil stockpiles at roughly 1 million barrels per day, a buffer that provides some cushion, but nothing close to absorbing months of disruption. More broadly, China views Iran as a critical node in its Belt and Road trade architecture, meaning Beijing has both economic and strategic incentives to push for de-escalation — but limited direct leverage over either Washington or Tehran in this crisis.

India, which has substantially grown its dependence on discounted Russian and Gulf crude, faces comparable vulnerability. The country’s refinery infrastructure is calibrated for Middle Eastern crude grades that flow exclusively through Hormuz. A disruption at this scale would force emergency diversions and likely compel India to draw on strategic reserves while its economy absorbs a significant inflation shock.

Europe, largely dependent on pipeline gas and LNG from Gulf and US sources, faces the twin pressure of rising energy import costs and the inflationary knock-on effects of a global oil spike. The region had already navigated extraordinary energy disruptions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022; a second major supply shock within four years would test the resilience of consumer confidence and industrial competitiveness across the continent.

Can the Strait Actually Be Closed? The Military Calculus

Experts are divided on Iran’s practical ability to sustain a Hormuz closure. The Congress Research Service has noted that a full closure has never occurred in history — even during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, when Iran mined the strait and attacked tankers, traffic continued. The US Fifth Fleet is permanently stationed in Bahrain, with carrier strike groups and mine countermeasure vessels specifically designed and drilled for a Hormuz contingency. Trump’s own video address specifically called for neutralizing Iran’s navy as a war objective, suggesting US planners were pre-emptively targeting the capability Iran would need to sustain any blockade.

Analysts at Foreign Policy caution that while “Iran can degrade enough that it cannot sustain a closure of the strait,” it remains “less likely to completely remove the threat of one-off attacks or harassment of vessels.” The practical reality, in other words, is likely to be not a binary open-or-closed scenario, but a sustained period of elevated risk, intermittent attacks, and dramatically inflated shipping and insurance costs — all of which have substantial economic effects even without a full closure.

Critically, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have already positioned themselves to absorb some of the supply gap. Amro Zakaria, global financial markets strategist at Kyoto Network, confirmed that Gulf producers were ramping up output before the conflict erupted. “Saudi, the UAE, etc., were already boosting production to cover for any disruptions. They can more than replace Iranian exports — of course, as long as there are no Gulf disruptions,” Robin Mills, CEO of Qamar Energy, told The National.

OPEC+ producers are also holding an emergency meeting on Sunday to evaluate whether to increase output quotas beyond the planned 137,000 barrels per day increment — potentially a significant stabilizing signal for markets heading into Monday’s open.

The Road Ahead: De-escalation or Prolonged Crisis?

The central question now facing energy markets, governments, and consumers is duration. Quantum Strategy’s David Roche framed it to CNBC as a simple fork: if the conflict is short and contained, the oil spike and risk-off market move will be sharp but brief, reverting once the strait reopens and Iranian supply stabilizes. If it becomes a three-to-five-week campaign aimed at regime change, markets would price in prolonged supply disruption — and the global economy would face something analysts are already calling potentially “three times the severity of the Arab oil embargo and the Iranian Revolution combined.”

Three pathways are now in view. The first is a rapid ceasefire or diplomatic intervention — perhaps through China, Oman, or the UN Security Council, which has called an emergency meeting — that halts the strikes and reopens the strait quickly. The second is a targeted, time-limited campaign that degrades Iran’s military capabilities without toppling the regime, followed by a negotiated re-engagement. The third — and most disruptive — is a full regime-change war lasting weeks or months, during which the Hormuz threat becomes a persistent structural feature of oil markets rather than a tail risk.

Nomura’s analysts note that a longer war, paradoxically, might ultimately be bearish for oil prices — as history from the Russia-Ukraine conflict suggests that markets adapt over time, alternative supplies fill gaps, and the initial war premium gradually fades. The short-term shock, however, would be severe.

For now, the world waits for Monday’s market open. The numbers will tell their own story — but the human and economic stakes behind them are already clear.

Key Data Summary

Metric	Figure	Source
Daily oil flow through Hormuz	~20 million barrels	EIA, 2024
Share of global oil supply	~20%	EIA / NPR
Share of global LNG trade	~22%	Congress Research Service
Brent crude close, Feb 28 (pre-open)	$72.87/bbl	Market data
WTI close, Feb 28 (pre-open)	$67.02/bbl	Market data
Current geopolitical risk premium	~$10/bbl	ING Group, Goldman Sachs
Partial disruption price estimate	$80–$100/bbl	Lombard Odier, ING
Full blockade price estimate	$120–$140/bbl	J.P. Morgan, ING Group
VLCC tanker rate (Middle East–China)	$150,000+/day	Mirae Asset Sharekhan
Iran daily oil exports	~1.9–3.1 million bbl/day	IEA, OPEC