←2026-04-17 · Herbert Simon
Analysis
Last weekend, U.S. Vice President Vance met with Iranian officials in Islamabad, but failed to reach a long-term regional peace agreement. The main sticking points remained Iran's nuclear program and reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
That a first round of talks produced no durable agreement is hardly surprising. What was surprising: President Trump's response to the failed negotiation — ordering a blockade of Iranian oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz until a deal is reached.
History and game theory both suggest markets have become complacent, treating a fragile ceasefire as permanent peace. Traders and algos have pushed the market to near extremes. From rising equity prices to record-level backwardation in crude futures (near-term futures trading far above deferred contracts), market participants are betting oil supply normalizes in weeks, not months.
As Machiavelli put it: "Wars begin when you will, but they do not end when you please." In reality, wars end only when both sides agree — or one side is destroyed. The U.S.'s current long-duration siege strategy at Hormuz doesn't mean the conflict has ended. It means it has shifted from a campaign of strikes to a blockade designed to compel Iran to terms. A peace agreement is possible — but the most likely outcome is that it takes longer than the market expects.
Markets are severely underpricing the risk of prolonged oil supply disruption. I'd advise readers to use the current rally to raise cash and avoid companies highly sensitive to supply shocks.
Because Iran has been largely excluded from the global economy, the main economic impact of this conflict shows up via damage to oil infrastructure and the Strait of Hormuz blockade.
The Strait is the busiest oil chokepoint in the world: roughly 20.3 million barrels per day transit through it, about 27% of global seaborne oil supply. While some volume has been rerouted through pipelines (~8.5M bpd), it's nowhere close to filling the gap.
Global crude demand in 2026 is expected to hit 106 million barrels per day. The current ~11.8M bpd shortfall exceeds the COVID-19 demand drawdown of 2020, which triggered a sharp U.S. recession.
Friendly governments are coordinating Strategic Petroleum Reserve releases to bridge the gap:
Combined, that covers roughly 48 days of the supply gap — approximately the duration of disruption so far.
Global markets reacted with a steep Sunday-night selloff, then rallied strongly through the week. The S&P 500 (SPY) now trades near pre-conflict levels, with investors betting the SoH closure won't last long enough to drag down the economy via oil. Oil-sensitive equities (XLE) gave back some gains but energy remains the top-performing sector YTD.
Legendary investor Ken Griffin warned that a prolonged Hormuz closure virtually guarantees a global recession. Markets are currently pricing in neither recession nor rising inflation — and may face the worst combination: stagflation, where the Fed cannot cut rates to cushion a slowdown.
Human cost aside, the main market driver is oil flow through Hormuz. Mapping the two sides' objectives reveals that prolonged stalemate is nearly inevitable.
Iran's primary demands:
U.S. and Israeli demands:
The Iranian and U.S. positions contain structurally irreconcilable conflicts — particularly on transit rights and enrichment.
Unfortunately, both sides have the capability to block Hormuz shipping. This has entered a classic war of attrition: resolution requires each side to conclude compromise is more attractive than continued hostility. Short-term hopes for compromise are further undermined by hardline public rhetoric on both sides, which only reinforces commitment to escalation.
Historical precedent: the Korean War ceased fire in 1953 but was never concluded with a peace treaty — the DMZ still stands. Stalemates of this nature can endure decades.
To grasp the extreme downside risk of a war of attrition, look at history. Measured as share of global supply, the Hormuz closure dwarfs every previous oil crisis — at roughly 11% of global supply. In 1973, crude prices rose roughly 300% from a supply shock, and only demand destruction restored equilibrium.
In the worst of 1973, the S&P 500 lost half its value. Every major oil shock has triggered a meaningful bear market. Aside from 1990, these supply shocks also brought inflation — worst among them, the stagflation of the 1970s. Rising inflation devastates bond prices (BND) — under current uncertainty, avoid long-duration and low-credit bonds.
Historical oil shock comparison:
| Event | Year | Volume Affected | % of Global Supply | S&P 500 Drawdown |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arab Oil Embargo | 1973 | ~5M bpd | ~8% | -48% |
| Iranian Revolution | 1978 | ~5M bpd | ~8% | -27% |
| Gulf War | 1990 | ~4.5M bpd | ~7% | -20% |
| Russia-Ukraine Invasion | 2022 | ~3M bpd | ~3% | -22% |
| Hormuz Blockade | 2026 | ~11.8M bpd | ~11% | TBD |
Median: ~5.9M bpd affected (7.4% of global supply), median S&P drawdown -29%. The current shock is unprecedented in scale.
On the bullish side, analysts expect strong 2026 corporate earnings growth. Initial EPS estimates of ~$310 have been revised up ~10% to $340.
Holding P/E constant: if tensions ease, fair value for the S&P 500 is around 7,500 — with 7,800 reachable by year-end.
Treating market prices as probability distributions (since no one can accurately forecast Iran's trajectory), assume a binary scenario for the remainder of 2026:
Bull case:
Bear case:
Solving for the implied probability of quick resolution:
Current price = p × Bull target + (1-p) × Bear target
6,995 = p × 7,800 + (1-p) × 5,600
p ≈ 0.634 or 63.4%
As the market has rallied, the implied probability of quick resolution has climbed to 63.4%. If you believe Hormuz resolves fast, buy equities. Otherwise, reduce exposure — or short.
Over recent years, investors have been trained to buy the dip through every major Trump-era selloff — the 2024 trade war, the 2020 COVID crash, the 2018 tariff panic. Investors are reflexively buying the dip again. Market "muscle memory" is rapidly absorbing geopolitical risk and pricing in a fast win.
But this time has a fundamental difference.
In prior selloffs, the U.S. government had strong control over the ultimate outcome. Now, a massive share of global oil is effectively hostage — unilateral resolution is structurally impossible. Iran might compromise, but it also views this conflict as existential. To preserve the regime, Iran is incentivized to drag out the stalemate as long as possible. Changing the situation via blockade may take far longer than markets anticipate. If military escalation resumes to force Iran's hand, expect equity drawdowns to follow.
Tactical recommendations:
The Strait carries roughly 20.3 million barrels per day — 27% of global seaborne oil supply. Even after rerouting what's possible through pipelines (~8.5M bpd), the ~11.8M bpd effective shortfall exceeds any historical oil crisis, including the 1973 Arab oil embargo.
Using binary scenario modeling (bull target 7,800 / bear target 5,600 / current 6,995), the market prices roughly 63.4% probability of quick resolution. That's a lean into optimism with little room for surprise — if the stalemate stretches beyond a few months, downside is substantial.
Iran and the U.S./Israel hold structurally irreconcilable core objectives: Iran demands enrichment rights + Hormuz transit fees + full sanctions relief; the U.S. demands no enrichment + freedom of navigation + retained sanctions. Given both parties' mutual blockade capability, this is a textbook war of attrition — the stalemate breaks only when one side's time cost clearly exceeds the other's.
Three steps: (1) Raise cash 5-15%; (2) Rotate into QQQ + XLE, underweight oil-sensitive consumer and transport names; (3) Avoid long-duration and low-credit bonds. Preserve liquidity to meet a potential second leg down.
Historical supply shocks of comparable magnitude (1973, 1978) produced S&P drawdowns of -27% to -48%. The current shock's global-supply share (11%) exceeds even 1973's (8%), so theoretical downside is larger — but modern market structure, strategic reserve releases, and U.S. energy independence should cushion part of the impact. My bear target is 5,600 (-20%).
This article reflects the author's personal views and does not constitute investment advice. Geopolitical events are highly uncertain; the data, probability estimates, and price targets cited here are based on public information and historical analogies and may diverge materially from actual outcomes. All investments carry risk, including potential loss of principal. Readers should conduct their own due diligence and consult qualified financial advisors before making investment decisions.