NextFin News - Six months into the war that began in late February, the market is being told it made the same mistake twice: first by ignoring the risk of conflict, and now by pricing a swift diplomatic exit that may never come. John Sfakianakis, chief economist at the Gulf Research Center, said in an Aug. 21, 2026 interview that Iran misjudged Washington's willingness to sustain a long war — a judgment that lands directly on a crude market where Brent settled at $93.30 a barrel on Aug. 20, up 1.83% on the day and 37.87% from a year earlier, yet still well below the levels major banks say a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz would require.
The tension is simple and uncomfortable: oil is rising, but not nearly as much as a war that has closed the world's most important chokepoint would historically demand. Gold, by contrast, has already reclaimed its key technical line. The question this piece answers is whether the oil market is finally learning, or merely being dragged higher one headline at a time.
The Situation: A War Premium That Never Fully Priced the War
The facts, in sequence, are stark. The conflict erupted on Feb. 28, 2026. Within weeks, shipping through the Strait of Hormuz — the passage that handled roughly one-fifth of global daily oil and liquefied natural gas flows before the war — was severely constrained by minefields and restricted tanker traffic. Brent crude, which traded near $72 a barrel on Feb. 27, the day before the war began, jumped 51% in March alone, one of the largest monthly oil surges on record, and traded as high as $119.50 a barrel, its highest level since June 2022. March's gain beat the previous monthly record of 46% set in September 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
Then the premium leaked away. By late July, after the United States and Iran paused their attacks, September WTI had fallen 5.6% in a single session to $84.34, and Brent spent much of August in the high-$80s before the latest push to $93.30. At the Aug. 20 close, crude was up just 2.51% over the prior month — a far cry from the 51% monthly move that opened the war.
Into that market, Sfakianakis delivered a message that was blunt in April and has only sharpened by August. In an April 7 interview, he said markets were "completely wrong" to price out the Iran war, arguing that oil at $110 or $120 was "the new 60, the new 70" — a new paradigm in which the Strait of Hormuz risk premium, ignored for two decades, had to be repriced permanently. He warned that escalation toward "an actual confrontation, on the ground" could push crude past $200 a barrel.
Four months later, the August 21 assessment is less about the price target than the strategic miscalculation behind it: Tehran, he argues, underestimated how long Washington would be willing to fight. That is a different claim from "oil goes to $200." It says the war's duration — not just its existence — was misread, and duration is what determines whether a $93 barrel is cheap or expensive.
The market's own behavior suggests it has not absorbed that lesson. Goldman Sachs, after a two-week ceasefire announcement, cut its near-term forecast but retained a scenario in which Brent averages more than $100 a barrel in the second half of 2026 if Hormuz remains essentially closed for another month — and $120 in the third quarter and $115 in the fourth if the disruption drags on. The bank's base case, set when it made the cut, assumed flows would recover by the end of June. That assumption has not materialized. In other words, even the most hawkish Wall Street forecast treats $100 oil as a contingency, not a base case — and the contingency keeps arriving while the base case keeps receding.
Why the Market Keeps Underpricing the Chokepoint
The first-order answer is obvious: oil rises when supply is threatened. The second-order question is why the premium stays so small for so long. Three mechanisms explain it, and each points to a different conclusion about whether this is cyclical or structural.
First, the premium leaks out through spare capacity and diplomacy. Every escalation headline is met, within hours, by reports of ceasefire talks, and every closure threat is discounted against Saudi, UAE, Iraqi and Kuwaiti output cuts that can be reversed. That mechanism is cyclical by nature: it mean-reverts the moment a deal is signed. Traders are not pricing the war; they are pricing the probability-weighted average of war and peace, and they keep assigning peace a higher weight than the facts justify.
Second, the premium is being crowded out by other macro forces. Gold tells the story better than oil does. Bullion hit a record $5,595 an ounce in January, fell below $4,000 in June as investors sought liquidity and central banks tapped reserves to support their economies, and rebounded about 9% in August. On Aug. 20, gold traded at $4,523.11 an ounce — above the 200-day moving average of $4,504 that had been acting as resistance. Gold's path — record, liquidation, recovery through resistance — shows a market that treated the war as a liquidity event first and a geopolitical regime shift second. If the canonical safe-haven asset was sold to raise cash and has only now recovered, crude's risk premium never stood a chance of pricing the full conflict.
"It feels as though the handbrake has finally been released from gold," said independent analyst Ross Norman in mid-August, capturing the tentative return of safe-haven demand. The same handbrake, applied to oil, has only just begun to ease.
Third, and most important, the market has no historical template for a six-month Hormuz closure. The 1970s oil shocks were supply embargoes with visible inventories and visible alternatives. This is a chokepoint denial with mines in the water and no clear end date. Analysts at SEB Research noted in mid-August that prices were unlikely to move substantially higher without a full halt in nighttime flows through Hormuz or a closure of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait — a threshold framing that reveals the market's mindset: it is waiting for a binary event, not pricing a continuous risk. Markets know how to price a spike. They do not know how to price a slow, indefinite leak.
The Cyclical Leg and the Structural Leg Are Not the Same Thing
This is where the analysis has to split, because blending the two produces a useless verdict. The call here is: the Hormuz risk premium is structural for the duration of the conflict, but the current price level is partly cyclical and vulnerable to a sharp snapback.
The structural evidence is in the rules, not the price. Before the war, Hormuz carried about 20% of global oil and LNG. Mines deployed in the strait cannot be cleared in days; tanker routes cannot be re-secured by a handshake. Even if Washington and Tehran sign a deal tomorrow, physical flows take weeks to normalize — a point emphasized in market analysis noting that shipping cannot fully resume until minefields are cleared and routes are secured. That is a regime change in the operating assumptions of the Gulf energy trade, and it does not self-correct. Insurance costs, routing detours and the threat of renewed minelaying become a permanent operating tax for as long as the strait is contested.
The cyclical evidence is equally real. The price has already moved from $72 to $93 without a full closure — meaning a large share of the premium is headline-driven sentiment, and sentiment reverses faster than mines are cleared. Three historical comparisons show the same pattern: the 1990-91 Gulf War's spike-and-collapse, the 2019 Abqaiq attack's one-day doubling and rapid fade, and the 2022 post-invasion surge that gave back gains as demand fears took over. Each shows a vertical geopolitical move followed by a horizontal grind lower as the market learns the actual volume of lost barrels. On that template, $93 Brent with Hormuz still partially open is consistent with a cyclical top forming, not a structural floor.
So the mechanism is two-speed: the floor under oil is structurally higher than the pre-war $72 for as long as the strait is contested, but the path to $120 or $200 requires an escalation event the market has repeatedly refused to price.
The Strongest Case Against This Read — and What Would Break It
The counter-thesis is straightforward, and it is the one Wall Street is effectively betting on: the war ends sooner than the hawks expect, Hormuz reopens, and today's premium evaporates. Goldman's base case — flows recovering by end-June, an assumption rolled forward even as it failed to materialize — embeds exactly this view. The evidence for it is real: ceasefires have been announced, talks have occurred, and both sides have shown restraint at moments when escalation would have been easy. If the market is right that the conflict is a bargaining process rather than a war of attrition, then $93 Brent is expensive, not cheap, and Sfakianakis's "new paradigm" is a warning that arrived too early.
That case is strong enough that it must shape the conclusion rather than be waved away. But it rests on one fragile assumption: that Washington's tolerance for a long war is finite, and that Tehran has correctly measured it. The August 21 argument says Tehran misjudged exactly that. If the United States is willing to sustain pressure indefinitely — including an indefinite naval blockade, as threatened in mid-August — then the bargaining model breaks down and the attrition model takes over. In an attrition model, the chokepoint premium is not a spike; it is a new operating cost.
The falsifying signal is specific and observable: if Brent closes below $80 a barrel for five consecutive trading sessions on news of a verified, implemented ceasefire that reopens Hormuz to normal tanker traffic, the structural-premium thesis is wrong and the market's cyclical read wins. Below $80 would erase essentially the entire war premium and confirm that the conflict was always a negotiating tactic rather than a structural break. Until then, the premium is being underpriced, not overpriced.
What Comes Next: Scenarios by Time Horizon
Short term (sentiment and liquidity): volatility dominates. Oil can gap higher on any escalation headline and gap lower on any ceasefire report. Gold, trading above its 200-day average near $4,523, is the cleaner read on risk appetite — a decisive break and hold above that level would signal that safe-haven demand is returning in earnest, and oil would follow with a lag. Equities remain caught between the two: the S&P 500 closed at 7,728.20 on Aug. 11, down 0.32% that day, and has shown it can make new highs even with 20% of the world's oil supply constrained — but only as long as inflation expectations stay contained and energy does not become the inflation story.
The transmission to consumers is already visible. Gasoline futures traded at $3.27 a gallon on Aug. 20, up 50.88% from a year earlier, even as crude sits roughly 22% below its March peak. That gap — a 51% year-over-year jump at the pump while crude gives back its wartime high — is the clearest evidence that the market has priced the conflict as a transient shock at the wellhead but a persistent cost at the pump.
Medium term (fundamentals): the base case is Brent averaging in the low-to-mid $90s through the third quarter, with Goldman's above-$100 scenario as the upside trigger if Hormuz stays closed another month, and a drop toward the mid-$70s as the downside if a deal restores flows. The asymmetry is worth stating: the upside scenario is a bank forecast with a stated trigger, while the downside scenario requires a diplomatic breakthrough that has failed to materialize for six months.
Long term (structural): if the conflict drags into 2027, the Gulf energy trade operates under a permanently higher insurance and routing cost, and the pre-war $72 oil becomes a historical artifact rather than a mean-reversion target. That is the world Sfakianakis described in April, and the August assessment suggests it is arriving not with a spike but with a grind.
The market's mistake was not failing to predict the war. It was assuming the war would behave like previous wars — sharp, visible, and quickly resolved. This one behaves like a slow leak in the world's most important pipe, and slow leaks are what markets price last.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
