Over the past several days, markets have been digesting the impact of coordinated military action by Israel and the United States against Iran, along with the possibility that operations could continue for some time. While the headlines are understandably unsettling, it’s important to separate what’s changing from what isn’t, and to focus on how this situation actually transmits into markets and portfolios.
What’s happening on the ground
Over the weekend, the U.S. and Israel launched coordinated strikes targeting Iranian military and leadership infrastructure. Iran has responded with missile and drone attacks across the region, raising the risk of wider spillovers. The situation remains fluid, and outcomes range from a relatively short‑lived escalation to a more prolonged period of disruption.
From a market perspective, Iran itself is not systemically important to the global economy. The country accounts for a relatively small share of global GDP and oil production. However, Iran’s geographic position matters far more than its production footprint. Roughly one quarter of the world’s oil and a meaningful share of global LNG flows pass through the Strait of Hormuz, making shipping disruptions the key pressure point rather than outright production losses.
Energy markets: disruption risk, not an oil crisis (yet)
It is estimated that over 20% of global oil consumption is shipped through the Strait of Hormuz. Our research provider Oxford Economics’ base case assumes that shipping through the Strait is impaired but not permanently closed, largely due to security risks and sharply higher insurance costs rather than a formal blockade. Under that scenario, global oil supply is reduced by roughly 4 million barrels per day on average over the next quarter, likely pushing Brent crude prices into the high‑$70s or around $80 before easing later this year as flows normalize. One mitigating factor is that OPEC+ agreed over the weekend to increase production by just over 200,000 barrels per day starting in April—though shipping logistics matter more than supply targets in the near term.
The oil market entered this episode with several important buffers:
- Global inventories and strategic reserves have been rebuilt in recent years
- Saudi Arabia and the UAE retain spare production capacity
- U.S. shale can respond to higher prices with a relatively short lead time
- With the rising share of service consumption, the global economy has become less reliant on oil as a source of growth
On the other hand, natural gas markets are more vulnerable. Qatar, one of the world’s largest LNG exporters, has no alternative export route that bypasses Hormuz. As a result, European and Asian gas prices have jumped sharply, and competition for LNG cargoes has intensified.
Inflation and interest rates: the real transmission channel
For investors, the most important impact of the Iran conflict runs through inflation expectations and interest rates, not a material slowdown of economic growth.
Energy prices feed directly into headline inflation and indirectly into core inflation through transportation and input costs. Oxford Economics estimates that a moderate disruption could add 0.3–0.4 percentage points to U.S. and eurozone CPI in 2026, while trimming only about 0.1 percentage point from global GDP growth.
That’s not recessionary—but it does complicate the path for central banks.
We’ve already seen this play out in markets. Treasury yields moved higher as investors reassessed inflation risks, even as traditional “safe‑haven” demand remained intact. Importantly, long‑run inflation expectations have not broken out, suggesting the market still views this as a shock that is likely to fade rather than a permanent regime shift.
Central banks, including the Federal Reserve, have historically looked through energy‑driven inflation when it’s viewed as temporary, but on the margin this conflict will cause the Fed to remain patient and data‑dependent. The bond market is pushing out expectations for the next rate cut marginally farther. Fed funds futures are fully pricing in the next rate cut at the September FOMC. Importantly, the market has not changed its estimate for a 3% fed funds rate by Q3 of next year.
How markets are responding so far
Markets have behaved much as history would suggest during periods of geopolitical stress:
- Energy stocks and commodities have outperformed
- The U.S. dollar has strengthened as a safe haven
- Treasuries have seen competing forces—higher inflation risk pushing yields up, offset by risk‑off flows
Historically, geopolitical shocks tend to cause short‑term volatility, not lasting damage to long‑term market returns. Since 1960, the S&P 500 has delivered solid gains in the year following peaks in geopolitical risk, even after major conflicts. The counter point is that if Middle East oil production is taken offline, the spike in the price of oil could go significantly higher and this timeline would be extended.
Bottom line
This is a serious geopolitical event, but from an investment standpoint, it is best viewed as an inflation and rates story, not a growth collapse.
Our base case remains:
- Energy prices stay elevated in the near term but ease later this year
- Inflation gets a temporary boost, complicating—but not derailing—rate cuts
- Volatility persists, but long‑term fundamentals remain intact
As always, we believe the right response is discipline, diversification, and perspective, not reactive portfolio changes driven by headlines. We’ll continue to monitor developments closely and will reach out as conditions evolve.
First Merchants Private Wealth Advisors products are not FDIC insured, are not deposits of First Merchants Bank, are not guaranteed by any federal government agency, and may lose value. Investments are not guaranteed by First Merchants Bank and are not insured by any government agency. This material has been prepared solely for informational purposes. First Merchants shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the data or information, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Any views or opinions in this message are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the organization.
