U.S./Israel-Iran War: the Middle East On Edge
NextFin News - The Bank of England held interest rates at 3.75% in September on a split 6-3 vote, and money markets now price a 95% chance of a quarter-point hike at the next meeting on 5 November. The November move is the easy call. The real uncertainty - and the real story for UK assets - begins after that, where the path of interest rates depends almost entirely on a variable the central bank cannot forecast: how long the Middle East conflict keeps energy prices elevated.
Since the fighting intensified in February, UK interest-rate markets have undergone one of their sharpest repricings in a generation. The two-year gilt yield has jumped 127 basis points to 4.70%, and the 10-year yield has climbed 113 basis points to 5.48% - its highest level since 2007. A rise of that magnitude over seven months has occurred only five times since 1992. Short-dated rate markets have swung roughly 115 basis points in recent weeks, moving from pricing about 50 basis points of cuts to about 60 basis points of hikes by year-end. Yet the economists surveyed ahead of the Bank's next Monetary Policy Report still expect two rate cuts in 2027, taking Bank Rate to 3.25%. One of those two views is wrong, and the gap between them is where the risk - and the opportunity - sits for investors.
The November Decision Is Priced - the Question Is What Follows
At its meeting ending 16 September, the Monetary Policy Committee kept Bank Rate at 3.75%, with three of nine members voting for an immediate 25-basis-point increase to 4%. The split itself was the signal: a hawkish minority that had been warning about second-round inflation effects for months now has the data on its side. UK consumer-price inflation rose to 3.1% in August, above the 2% target, and the Bank expects it to climb further in the second half of 2026 as higher energy costs feed through to households and businesses.
The repricing since then has been decisive. Traders now assign roughly a 95% probability to a 25-basis-point hike on 5 November, with overnight-index-swap pricing and prediction markets in close agreement. December is less certain but still tilted higher: markets imply about a 49% chance of a second consecutive hike, taking the implied rate to around 4.11% by mid-December. Beyond that, the pricing steepens - market pricing derived from SONIA futures points to the base rate reaching roughly 4.5% by April 2027 and 4.9% by October 2027, peaking near 5% in early 2028. That is a full percentage point above where the median economist expects policy to be two years from now.
This is not a normal tightening cycle, and that is the point. The Bank is not raising rates because the economy is overheating - activity has been only slightly stronger than expected, and labour-market conditions remain soft. It is being expected to raise rates because an external supply shock has pushed inflation up from below, and the institution is determined to prove it will not let a temporary energy spike become a permanent wage-price problem.
The Bank's own survey of market participants tells a different story from the futures market. In the June Market Participants Survey, the median expectation was for Bank Rate to hold at 3.75% through the end of 2026, then fall to 3.63% one year ahead and 3.25% at the two- and three-year horizons - matching the median long-run estimate of the neutral rate. The futures market, by contrast, is pricing a path that ends more than a percentage point higher. That divergence is the cleanest available measure of how much uncertainty the energy shock has injected into UK monetary policy.
Energy: A Cyclical Shock With a Structural Tail
The mechanics of the shock are stark. Since the period leading up to the Bank's July report, Brent crude has risen 36% and UK wholesale gas has surged 78%. At the close of business on 14 September, Brent stood at $106 a barrel and UK wholesale gas at 207 pence per therm. By early October, Brent had touched $125 - a gain of about 76% since late February - and the Ofgem price cap that took effect on 1 October lifted the typical gas unit rate from 6.29 pence per kilowatt-hour last winter to 7.90 pence, an 8% quarterly and 26% annual increase. Analysts expect the January-to-March 2027 cap to climb again, landing in the depths of winter when households use the most energy.
Here is the cyclical-versus-structural question that decides everything. The energy price spike itself is cyclical: it is a supply disruption caused by a conflict, and futures curves for both oil and gas slope downward, implying the market expects normalisation once the disruption eases. Cyclical shocks mean-revert. If the conflict de-escalates, energy prices fall back, and the inflation impulse reverses - exactly the path the economists forecasting 2027 cuts are betting on.
But the tail on that cyclical shock is structural, and it runs through expectations. Bank staff research published this year finds that household inflation expectations become significantly more sensitive to global oil-price shocks once overall inflation rises above 3.1%. Inflation is sitting at exactly that threshold now. External MPC member Megan Greene made the mechanism explicit in September:
"Since the conflict in Iran started more than six months ago, we have faced uncertainty around the path for energy prices and, relatedly, uncertainty about the extent of second-round effects. The news since July suggests a greater risk of second-round effects and inflation persistence."
In a speech at the London School of Economics on 20 October, she went further: "I therefore continue to believe we should proactively lean against the risk of second-round effects," arguing that the bigger risk is acting too late rather than too soon.
This is the structural ratchet. Even if energy prices fall back, the experience of inflation above 3% may have permanently raised the level of inflation attentiveness among households and the wage demands that follow. That is why the neutral-rate debate matters: the Bank's survey respondents see the long-run rate settling near 3.25%, while at least one major bank's baseline runs above 4% to the end of the decade. If expectations have shifted structurally, the 3.25% neutral rate is a relic of the low-inflation era, and the economists' 2027 cuts never arrive.
Governor Andrew Bailey framed the trade-off in the Bank's own words after the September decision: "So far, higher global energy costs have had a limited effect on price and wage setting in the UK. But the longer this volatility persists, the bigger the impact it will have on inflation, and the more likely it is we will need to raise Bank Rate to ensure that inflation falls back to our 2% target." Note the conditionality - "the longer this volatility persists." The Bank has tied its own reaction function to the duration of the shock, which means every week of conflict is a week of hawkish pressure.
The Great Divide: Markets Price Hikes, Economists See Cuts
The divergence between market pricing and economist consensus is not a rounding difference - it is a fundamental disagreement about the nature of the shock. Markets, via overnight-index swaps and prediction markets, see Bank Rate ending 2027 around 4.5% to 4.75%. A consensus of economists sees two quarter-point cuts in 2027, to 3.25%, with Goldman Sachs calling for a low of 3%. The gap is more than 100 basis points at the two-year horizon.
Both sides have evidence. The hawkish market case rests on the pass-through already visible in financial conditions: the quoted rate on two-year fixed-rate mortgages is about 95 basis points higher than before the conflict, the 10-year gilt yield is at a 19-year high, and sterling has weakened about 1.6% against the dollar since late February. Tighter financial conditions do some of the Bank's work in advance, but they also import inflation through a weaker currency - a self-reinforcing loop that keeps the case for hikes alive.
The dovish economist case rests on the real economy. The Bank's September minutes noted soft labour-market conditions and acknowledged that higher interest rates faced by households and businesses since the conflict began will act to reduce inflation over time. An energy-driven cost shock that is not accompanied by strong demand is, in textbook terms, stagflationary - and the textbook response to a demand-destroying shock is not to tighten aggressively. If growth rolls over in 2027 while energy prices stabilise, the MPC will face pressure to cut even if inflation remains above target.
The second-order implication is where most commentary stops short. The market is not just pricing higher rates; it is pricing a regime change in how the Bank reacts to supply shocks. For the past decade, central banks looked through energy spikes. Now the Bank of England has signalled it will lean against second-round effects pre-emptively - which means the reaction function itself has shifted. That shift is priced into the front end of the gilt curve but not fully into the two-to-three-year horizon, where economist forecasts still assume a return to the old playbook. If the Bank delivers even one more hike than economists expect, the 2027 cut cycle gets pushed out, and the entire yield curve reprices higher.
The Counter-Thesis: A Policy Error in the Making
The strongest case against the hawkish read is that the Bank risks a classic policy error: tightening into a cost-of-living shock that is already slowing the economy. The argument runs that the energy spike is a relative-price adjustment, not a demand problem, and that raising rates cannot produce more oil or gas - it can only deepen the slowdown. If the conflict de-escalates and energy prices fall back toward pre-shock levels, the inflation impulse reverses quickly, and today's hikes become tomorrow's excess restraint. Sterling has already absorbed much of the pressure, and the gilt selloff - 113 basis points on the 10-year in seven months - may have done enough tightening on the Bank's behalf.
This case is credible, and it is backed by the Bank's own doves and by the economist consensus. But it rests on two assumptions that the data does not yet support: that the conflict will de-escalate on a policy-relevant timescale, and that expectations have not already shifted. Inflation is at the 3.1% threshold where Bank research says expectations become more sensitive. Wage and price-setting data over the next two quarters will show whether that threshold has been crossed. Until it is clear that expectations remain anchored, the asymmetric risk favours the hawks - the cost of hiking too much is a mild, temporary slowdown; the cost of hiking too little is a wage-price spiral that takes years to unwind.
The signal that would prove the hawkish thesis wrong is specific and observable: if UK core or services inflation prints below 0.2% month-on-month for two consecutive months while Brent crude falls and holds below $85 a barrel, the case for hikes beyond November collapses. That combination would confirm both that the energy shock is reversing and that second-round effects have not taken hold. Neither condition is met today.
What to Watch: Scenarios Across Three Horizons
Short term (November-December 2026): The 5 November decision is effectively priced, so the market reaction will hinge on the accompanying Monetary Policy Report and the MPC vote split. A move to a 5-4 hawkish margin, or a 7-2 one if two members defect, would push December-hike pricing well above 50%. The key data point before then is the September CPI release on 21 October. A hot print lifts the entire curve; a soft one gives the doves ammunition for a pause.
Medium term (2027): This is where the 100-basis-point gap between market pricing and economist forecasts gets resolved. Base case: one or two hikes in late 2026, then a hold through 2027 as the Bank waits for energy-driven inflation to peak and roll over - a path closer to the market than to the economist consensus. Upside case for rates: the conflict widens, Brent tests $130-$150, and the Bank delivers three or more hikes, taking Bank Rate toward 4.5%-4.75%. Downside case: a ceasefire and a sharp energy reversal, plus weak labour data, force the Bank to cut in 2027 despite above-target inflation - the stagflationary dovish pivot.
Long term (structural): The neutral-rate debate - 3.25% versus above 4% - will not be settled by energy prices alone. It depends on whether the post-shock economy operates with permanently higher inflation attentiveness, higher term premiums, and higher government borrowing costs. The 30-year gilt yield at 6.05%, up 87 basis points since February, suggests bond investors are already pricing a structurally higher regime.
For investors, the asymmetry is clear. Beneficiaries of the hawkish path include short-duration gilts, which capture the front-end repricing with less duration risk; sterling, which tends to strengthen on real-rate support; and the banking sector, where wider policy spreads support net interest margins - up to the point where credit losses accelerate. The exposed are holders of long-duration gilts and index-linked bonds, UK corporates with floating-rate debt, and the housing market, where mortgage costs have already risen 95 basis points and the FTSE 100 has fallen 4.3% since the shock began.
The Bank of England has made its reaction function conditional on the duration of the energy shock, which means interest-rate policy beyond November is not a function the Bank controls - it is a function of events in the Middle East. November's hike is a bet on the past; everything after it is a bet on a war.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
