US-Iran conflict and energy disruption: Escalating hostilities and oil production constraints have pushed prices above $100, compounded by a hard-line leadership transition in Iran and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a route for roughly 20% of global oil consumption
Binary outlook: Markets face two plausible paths, a near term declaration of mission completion by the US and Israel that allows energy flows to stabilise, or a prolonged campaign aimed at deeper regime compliance or change, implying sustained disruption to global energy markets
US constraints: Despite US energy self-sufficiency, rising oil prices and weakening labour momentum increase domestic political and economic pressure, with polling indicating limited public tolerance for a prolonged conflict, raising incentives for an earlier declaration of success
Investment stance: Our central assumption remains a relatively short-lived conflict and market stabilisation, though uncertainty is elevated; we are staying the course while closely monitoring de-escalation signals and energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz for potential selective portfolio adjustments
Further escalation in hostilities in the Middle East over the weekend, alongside oil production cuts related to storage capacity, has pushed oil prices above $100 today. The confirmation of a leadership transition in Iran adds to near term risks, with th enew Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei (the son of the late leader) widely viewed as a hard-line figure and unlikely to pursue early conciliation. With the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed, a chokepoint through which roughly 20% of global oil consumption normally transits, this represents a critical juncture for the global economy and the broader market cycle. Geopolitical analysts broadly frame the outlook around two potential paths: a near term declaration that key US Israeli objectives have been met, namely the degradation of Iran’s military capabilities and a severe weakening of the regime, allowing energy supply chains to stabilise; or an extended campaign aimed at deeper regime compliance or change, which would imply a far more prolonged disruption to global energy markets.
An important consideration is the tightening set of constraints facing the US administration. Whilst the US is a net energy exporter and therefore less exposed to the most acute inflationary pressures than Europe or Asia, domestic political and economic sensitivities remain significant. Polling suggests that US voters are unsupportive of a prolonged military conflict, and rising energy prices are likely to weigh on confidence, hiring intentions, and discretionary spending, further eroding public support for President Trump. Notably, the oil price shock of 2022 did not trigger a recession, largely because a strong labour market and excess pandemic era savings allowed consumers to continue spending and firms to keep hiring despite higher inflation and borrowing costs. That backdrop is weaker today, with US employment growth losing momentum in recent months. If oil prices remain above $100 for a sustained period, similar resilience should not be assumed, increasing the pressure on President Trump to signal that strategic objectives have been achieved sooner rather than later.
We have high confidence in our central assumption that the conflict proves relatively short lived, allowing economic and market conditions to stabilise in the weeks ahead, but we also recognise it is an evolving situation. President Trump’s established approach has been to escalate rapidly before de-escalating and declaring victory, yet the route to such an outcome appears more uncertain and potentially more volatile than in recent episodes. In this environment, the appropriate course of action is to stay the course, ensuring a broadly diversified and flexible approach. History suggests that markets often recover quickly following the initial shock of military conflict, particularly when supported by existing tailwinds such as rising fiscal spending and powerful structural drivers including the continued expansion of artificial intelligence. We are monitoring closely for signs of de-escalation, negotiations, and a stabilisation in energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz, any of which could warrant selective portfolio rebalancing as conditions evolve.
RISK DISCLOSURE :
This document has been prepared for information only and to be used with existing clients only. It is not intended for onward distribution. It is neither an offer to sell, nor a solicitation to buy, any investments or services.
The information on this document does not constitute legal, tax, or investment advice. It does not constitute a personal recommendation and does not consider the individual financial circumstances, needs or objectives of the recipients. You must not, therefore, rely on the content of this document when making any investment decisions.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that the information provided to clients is accurate and up to date, some of the information may be rendered inaccurate by changes in applicable laws and regulations
Issued by Stonehage Fleming Investment Management Limited (SFIM). Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FRN.194382) and registered with the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (South Africa) as a Financial Services Provider (FSP No. 46194).