NextFin News - President Donald Trump is playing down hopes for a deal with Iran as fighting between the two countries escalates over control of the Strait of Hormuz, pushing Brent crude above $91 a barrel and forcing the oil market to price in a protracted "no war, no peace" stalemate that could last well into 2027. The shift marks a stark reversal from the optimism that surrounded the June memorandum of understanding, which was supposed to end the nearly six-month war and reopen the world's most important oil chokepoint.
The latest escalation began on Sunday, August 30, when US forces struck two Iranian launchers on Larak Island in the strait, saying Revolutionary Guards crews were preparing to fire rockets carrying sea mines into the shipping lane. Iran retaliated the following day, launching ballistic missiles and drones at the King Hussein and Al Azraq air bases in Jordan - eight missiles were intercepted in Jordanian airspace - and targeting US forces and helicopters at the Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in the United Arab Emirates. Trump, asked about the prospect of a negotiated settlement, offered little encouragement, telling Fox News on Monday only that "we're going to hit them hard" in response to Tehran's strikes.
The Situation: A Memorandum That Never Held
The backdrop is a war that began on February 28, 2026, when the United States and Israel launched joint strikes against Iran with the stated goals of destroying its ballistic missile capability, eliminating its navy, preventing it from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon, and severing its support for proxy forces. After months of fighting, Washington and Tehran signed a remote memorandum of understanding on June 17, 2026, intended to end the war and restore maritime traffic through the strait, a narrow sea channel that in peacetime carries about one-fifth of global oil supplies.
The memorandum delivered a brief economic reprieve. TankerTrackers, which monitors oil tanker movements, recorded more than 80 million barrels of Iranian crude and petroleum products exported in the 26 days following the signing - worth an estimated $6 billion, an average of about 3.1 million barrels a day, roughly double the 1.6 million to 1.8 million barrels a day Iran had been shipping in recent months. Around 30 million barrels were still awaiting shipment. But the commercial window closed as fast as it opened.
A 60-day ceasefire expired in mid-August without an extension or a permanent peace deal, and hostilities resumed almost immediately. Iranian leaders have since claimed, without precedent in international law, a right to control shipping through the entirety of the Strait of Hormuz, citing the June agreement in which Iran agreed to "make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels." Tehran has interpreted that language as granting it the right to administer the strait - a reading Washington rejects.
The result is a chokepoint under siege. Before the war, roughly 130 vessels transited the strait daily. From August 24 to August 30, that number fell to 107, down from 121 the prior week, according to ship-monitoring platform MarineTraffic. Many vessels now sail "dark," with their Automatic Identification System turned off to reduce the threat from Iranian drones and missiles or interception by the US Navy. Late on Monday, the UK Maritime Trade Operations centre, operated by the British Royal Navy, reported that a tanker was struck by three unknown projectiles while crossing the strait; no casualties were reported and no group claimed responsibility.
Iran's chief negotiator, Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, made Tehran's position explicit in a video message on Tuesday. He said the strait would not reopen until Washington implemented its obligations under the June agreement, and warned that if the US intensified its maritime blockade:
"No one else will be able to export oil from this region either."
He described forcing Washington to comply as what would become America's "third defeat." President Masoud Pezeshkian struck a slightly softer tone, signaling readiness to revive the Islamabad memorandum if Washington honored its commitments - but the condition was the same: Washington must move first.
Why This Is Not a Cyclical Flare-Up
The central question for investors is whether this is a cyclical escalation - a bargaining tactic that recedes once a new ceasefire is signed - or a structural struggle that no memorandum can resolve. The evidence points to structural.
Three factors separate this from a routine bargaining cycle. First, the object of the conflict has changed. The war began over Iran's nuclear program and missile arsenal, but the fighting has migrated to the Strait of Hormuz itself. Iran is no longer merely using the strait as leverage to extract sanctions relief; it is asserting a claimed right to administer the waterway and to route ships through its territorial waters rather than long-standing international shipping lanes. That is a positional shift, not a negotiating tactic. A position that has been elevated to a matter of national doctrine does not revert when oil prices dip.
Second, the June memorandum was structurally unenforceable. Its core maritime commitment - that Iran would use its "best efforts" for safe passage - contains no verification mechanism, no third-party monitor, and no penalty for non-compliance. An agreement that relies on the goodwill of a party that benefits from disruption is not a contract; it is a hope. The mid-August expiration of the 60-day ceasefire without extension was the predictable outcome of that design flaw, not an accident.
Third, the military balance has shifted in a way that rewards continued harassment over compromise. Iran's conventional navy has been degraded, but it retains enough asymmetric capability - drones, missiles, fast attack craft, mines - to disrupt shipping at will. The United States has superior firepower but no scalable way to guarantee the safety of every commercial vessel in a confined waterway. That asymmetry creates a stable equilibrium of low-level conflict: Iran can impose costs on the global economy without triggering an all-out war, and the United States can punish Iranian assets without eliminating the threat. Equilibria like this do not resolve themselves; they persist until one side's cost tolerance breaks.
The market has noticed. Brent crude, the international benchmark, rose more than 1 percent on Tuesday to top $91 a barrel, extending a more than 2.5 percent gain from the previous day. November delivery stood at $91.44 a barrel as of 05:00 GMT, up from just over $88 at Monday's close. The price has been volatile since the ceasefire lapsed, peaking at nearly $94.40 on August 21 and trading in a range of $86 to $91 since. That range is not the pricing of a temporary shock; it is the pricing of a persistent risk premium.
The Second-Order Trade: A Sticky Geopolitical Premium
The first-order effect of the escalation is obvious: oil prices rise when the strait is threatened. The second-order effect is more consequential and less widely appreciated. The market is not pricing a single event; it is pricing a regime change in how the strait operates.
Saul Kavonic, head of energy research at MST Financial, put it plainly:
"Hopes of a near-term deal to open the strait have faded as the conflict appears back on an escalatory trajectory in the wake of recent attacks."
He went further: "The oil market is increasingly realising we may be in for a protracted 'no war, no peace' situation, with only partial volumes flowing through the strait, that could last well into 2027." That timeline matters. A premium that persists for quarters, not days, does not behave like a typical geopolitical spike. It embeds itself in forward curves, in inventory decisions, in the hedging strategies of airlines and refiners, and ultimately in the inflation expectations that central banks watch.
There is, however, a countervailing mechanism that could strip the premium away faster than the hawks expect. Tony Sycamore, a senior market analyst at IG Markets, noted that oil could ease if "dark" shipments and ship-to-ship transfers resume. "However, if this flare-up were to fade by the weekend and those dark-ship and ship-to-ship transfers resume, you would expect this week's geopolitical premium to get stripped out pretty quickly," he said. "Overall, what we are dealing with is a day-to-day proposition."
That is the crux of the disagreement between the structural and cyclical reads. If the strait's effective throughput holds up through shadow fleets and rerouted cargoes, the price spike is self-limiting. If Iranian attacks succeed in materially reducing volumes - or if a strike causes a mass casualty event or a major spill - the premium expands into something far more damaging. The market is currently betting on the former but hedging against the latter.
The Counter-Thesis: Both Sides Still Want a Deal
The strongest argument against the structural read is simple: both Washington and Tehran have powerful incentives to settle, and they have done so before. The June memorandum proves a deal is possible. Trump faces domestic pressure over fuel prices; Iran's economy is under severe strain, with its currency in free fall and protests spreading after a brutal crackdown. Neither side wants a long war. Trump himself has repeatedly said he would rather make a deal than fight, telling reporters on July 8 that Iran "badly wants to make a deal" and that "they called a little while ago."
This is a serious objection, and it contains truth. Both sides do want a deal - but they want incompatible deals. Washington wants the strait open on international terms, with no Iranian veto over shipping. Tehran wants the strait reopened only after Washington lifts its blockade, pays compensation for war damage, lifts sanctions, and releases frozen assets. Those are not negotiating positions that can be bridged with a phone call; they are mutually exclusive end-states. When the Iranian foreign ministry said on August 10 that the strait would not reopen until those conditions were met, it was not leaving room for a compromise. It was defining victory.
Trump's own recent messaging undercuts the deal optimism further. On August 9, he wrote on his Truth Social platform that "there are no talks or conversations going on, or scheduled, with the Islamic Republic of Iran." A president who publicly announces that no talks are scheduled is not positioning himself for a breakthrough; he is managing expectations for a longer conflict.
What to Watch: The Signals That Will Settle the Debate
The structural versus cyclical question will be answered by observable data, not rhetoric. Three signals matter most.
First, strait throughput. If transits recover to pre-war levels - sustained readings above 120 per day for two consecutive weeks - the disruption is manageable and the premium should fade. If transits remain below 100, or continue to decline, the structural read is confirmed.
Second, the price level. Brent has traded in an $86 to $91 range since the truce lapsed. A decisive break above $94.40 - the August 21 peak - would signal that the market is pricing a genuine supply disruption rather than a risk premium. A break below $80, sustained for more than a few sessions, would signal that the market believes a diplomatic fix is imminent.
Third, the diplomatic calendar. The June memorandum was signed under Pakistani mediation in Islamabad; any revival would likely run through the same channel. If Pakistan announces renewed shuttle diplomacy, the cyclical read gains ground. If, instead, both sides continue to announce that no talks are scheduled, the structural read holds.
Outlook: Who Benefits, Who Is Exposed
The asymmetry is clear. Direct beneficiaries of a persistent premium are energy producers outside the conflict zone - US shale operators, Gulf producers with secure export routes, and the defense and maritime-security industries that sell the hardware of strait protection. Also positioned to benefit: insurers and reinsurers pricing war-risk coverage, and the shadow fleets that profit from opacity.
The exposed are equally clear. Net oil importers with thin foreign-exchange buffers face the familiar squeeze: higher import bills, weaker currencies, tighter fiscal space. Refiners configured for light sweet crude face margin pressure if the premium widens faster than product prices can pass through. And the largest exposure of all is the inflation trajectory in the major economies: a $90-plus Brent floor, sustained into 2027, is not a headline risk; it is an input cost that works its way into everything from freight to fertilizer to food.
The base case is continued low-level conflict: strikes and counter-strikes, sporadic attacks on shipping, oil stuck in the high-$80s to low-$90s, and diplomacy that is announced but never convened. The upside case - for oil, not for the region - is a mass-casualty attack or a major spill that pushes Brent through $100 and forces a genuine diplomatic scramble. The downside case is a weekend de-escalation that strips the geopolitical premium and sends Brent back toward $80.
The central judgment: this is not a cyclical dip that a new memorandum will fix. It is a structural struggle over who controls the world's most important oil chokepoint, and the June agreement's fatal flaw - unenforceable "best efforts" language - has not been repaired. Until that flaw is fixed, or until one side's cost tolerance breaks, the market is right to price the strait as a permanent risk rather than a temporary disruption.
Trump's playing down of deal hopes is not a negotiating posture. It is an acknowledgment of the mechanism: when the object of a war becomes the waterway itself, the war does not end with a signature. It ends when one side can no longer afford to keep fighting.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
