In the current context of geopolitical tensions, with nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran scheduled to begin in February 2026, the possibility of a US military attack against Iran has generated speculation about the oil market. Currently, the price of Brent crude is around $68-70 per barrel, while WTI is hovering around $64-65. A direct conflict could drastically alter this stability, recalling historical events such as the Gulf War in 1990, when prices doubled, or the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which resulted in smaller but significant price spikes.
Iran is a key player in the global market, producing more than 3 million barrels per day (bpd), representing approximately 3-4% of global supply. A US attack could disrupt this production, either through direct strikes on oil facilities or through intensified sanctions. Even more critical is the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world's oil passes. If Iran were to respond by closing this vital route, as it has threatened in the past, the impact would be catastrophic.
Analysts at firms like BloombergNEF estimate that, in a scenario of moderate disruption, Brent crude could reach $91 per barrel by the end of 2026. In cases of limited military action, such as strikes on nuclear facilities, prices could rise by $5 to $10 per barrel temporarily. However, a broader conflict, with Iranian retaliation against US bases or infrastructure in the Gulf, could raise prices by $10-15 or more, potentially exceeding $100 if the Strait is closed.
Experts like Bob McNally of Rapidan Energy Group assign a 75% probability to a US attack in the coming weeks, warning that the market is already pricing in a "risk premium" for potential sustained disruptions. In extreme scenarios, such as a complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz, prices could double to over $125 per barrel, with lasting effects of 3 to 12 months. Barclays and other banks anticipate initial spikes to $80 in symbolic responses, but a simultaneous disruption to production and transit routes could lead to larger shocks, albeit cushioned by the current global oversupply.
However, there is an asymmetry in the risks: while a nuclear agreement could lower prices by only $5, an escalation has the potential for rapid and non-linear increases. Factors such as the OPEC+ response, US strategic reserves, and global demand (affected by energy transitions) could mitigate the impact. Even so, an attack would not only raise energy costs but could also trigger global inflation, recession, and volatility in financial markets.
Disclaimer:
The information provided through this channel does not constitute financial advice and should not be construed as such. This content is for purely informational and educational purposes. Financial decisions should be based on a careful evaluation of your own circumstances and consultation with qualified financial professionals. The accuracy, completeness or timeliness of the information provided is not guaranteed, and any reliance on it is at your own risk. Additionally, financial markets are inherently volatile and can change rapidly. It is recommended that you conduct thorough research and seek professional advice before making significant financial decisions. We are not responsible for any loss, damage or consequences that may arise directly or indirectly from the use of this information.
