Oil Prices Rise After US and Iranian Forces Exchange Fire in Strait of Hormuz

On May 7, 2026, the fragile ceasefire between the United States and Iran shattered again over the narrow waters of the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian missiles, drones, and fast attack boats targeted three US Navy destroyers — the USS Truxtun, the USS Rafael Peralta, and the USS Mason — as they transited toward the Gulf of Oman [1]. No US assets were struck. US Central Command (CENTCOM) responded by hitting Iranian launch sites, command centers, and intelligence nodes, calling the Iranian attack "unprovoked" [2]. Iran's military described the US strikes as a ceasefire violation and threatened retaliation [1].

Oil markets reacted immediately. Brent crude had already surged nearly 6% earlier in the week to $114.44 per barrel [3]. After the May 7 exchange, Brent futures for July delivery rose another 1.20% to $101.26, while WTI crude climbed to $109.76 — up 87.6% from a year earlier [4][5].

The exchange is the latest escalation in a conflict that has produced what the International Energy Agency has called "the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market" [6].

Source: FRED / EIA

Data as of May 4, 2026CSV

The Chokepoint: 20 Million Barrels a Day at Stake

Before the war began on February 28, 2026, an average of 20 million barrels per day of crude oil and oil products transited the Strait of Hormuz — roughly 20% of total world petroleum liquids consumption and about 25% of all seaborne oil trade [7][8]. The strait is 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, with shipping lanes just two miles across in each direction.

The current disruption dwarfs every prior Hormuz incident. During the 1987–1988 Tanker War between Iran and Iraq, only an estimated 1–2% of merchant traffic came under attack, and shipping never stopped [9]. Oil prices rose about 11% in the first six months of the Iran-Iraq War but stabilized afterward because Gulf exports remained open and non-Gulf supply was ample [9].

The 2019 tanker attacks on the Kokuka Courageous and Front Altair produced a brief 4% oil price spike that settled to roughly 2% [10]. Traffic through the strait was uninterrupted.

In 2026, by contrast, transit has collapsed by over 95%. Shipping activity dropped from around 130 crossings per day in February to just 6 in March [11]. Only 40 ships crossed the strait in the entire week ending May 3, compared to pre-war averages of 120 per day [12]. The Dallas Federal Reserve estimates the closure has removed "close to 20 percent of global oil supplies from the market" — three to five times larger than the 1973 Arab oil embargo (6%) or the 1979–1980 Iranian Revolution disruption (4%) [13].

What Happened on May 7: Competing Narratives

The two sides offer irreconcilable accounts. CENTCOM stated that Iranian forces launched an unprovoked attack using missiles, drones, and fast attack boats against the three destroyers [1]. The US military said no American vessels were hit, and it struck Iranian launch sites and command nodes in response [2].

Iran denied firing first. Iranian state media described the engagement as a defensive response to "enemy units" operating near Iranian territorial waters [14]. The Iranian military has also imposed new transit rules through a body called the Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA), requiring all vessels to complete a 40-question "Vessel Information Declaration" and, in some cases, pay "toll fees" that analysts say may reach $2 million per ship [15].

Independent verification remains limited. Ship-tracking data confirms the near-total collapse of transit traffic, and the International Maritime Organization reports approximately 20,000 seafarers stranded on some 2,000 vessels in the strait — a situation the IMO described as having "no precedent for the stranding of so many seafarers in the modern age" [3]. Satellite imagery and third-party accounts of the specific May 7 engagement have not yet been independently corroborated beyond the official statements from both governments.

Bypass Pipelines: Partial Relief, Under Fire

Two major pipelines offer alternative routes that bypass the Strait of Hormuz. Saudi Arabia's East-West Pipeline (the Petroline) runs 746 miles from the Abqaiq oil field to the Red Sea port of Yanbu, with a capacity of up to 7 million barrels per day when accompanying natural gas liquids lines are converted to carry crude [16]. The UAE's Habshan-Fujairah Pipeline (ADCOP) runs 248 miles from onshore facilities to the port of Fujairah on the Gulf of Oman, handling roughly 1.5–1.8 million barrels per day [16].

Combined, the two pipelines offer an estimated 3.5–5.5 million barrels per day of available bypass capacity [16] — significant, but far short of the 20 million barrels per day that normally transits the strait.

Both have already been attacked. Iran struck the Saudi East-West Pipeline in April, reducing throughput by roughly 700,000 barrels per day [16]. The port of Fujairah came under Iranian drone attacks, disrupting crude loading operations [16]. The Dallas Fed estimates that even if the pipelines reduce the supply shortfall from 20% to 10%, the quarterly GDP impact would only fall from -2.9 to -1.6 percentage points [13].

Who Gets Hurt Most: Asia's Acute Exposure

The pain is distributed unevenly. In 2024, 84% of crude oil and condensate and 83% of liquefied natural gas moving through the Strait of Hormuz was bound for Asian markets [7].

Source: EIA / IEA

Data as of May 1, 2026CSV

Japan depends on Hormuz for close to three-quarters of its oil imports [7]. South Korea holds roughly 3.5 million tons of LNG reserves — enough for two to four weeks of stable demand [7]. India sources almost half its crude oil imports and about 60% of its natural gas through the strait [7]. China receives 37.7% of all oil exports passing through Hormuz, with about 40% of its total oil imports transiting the waterway [7].

By contrast, European and US markets have greater supply diversification. The EU sources roughly 15% of its oil imports through Hormuz, while the US figure is around 5% [7][8]. That said, oil is a globally priced commodity: even countries that import little Hormuz oil face higher prices when 20% of global supply is disrupted.

UNCTAD projects global merchandise trade growth will decelerate from 4.7% in 2025 to 1.5–2.5% in 2026, with South Asia and Europe facing the greatest exposure due to Middle East energy dependency [11]. Global GDP growth is expected to slow from 2.9% to 2.6% [11].

The Economic Cascade: Airlines, Fertilizer, and Food

The disruption radiates far beyond crude oil markets.

Airlines face an acute crisis. Over 20% of global seaborne jet fuel supply passed through the Strait of Hormuz, with about two-thirds destined for Europe [17]. Jet fuel prices in Europe have doubled over the past year to $187 per barrel as of May 1 [17]. Lufthansa has warned the closure will add $2 billion in fuel costs [18]. Airlines globally have cut 9.3 million seats for the June–September period, according to aviation analytics firm Cirium [17]. Spirit Airlines ceased all operations on May 2, citing unsustainable fuel costs [17]. Jet fuel in North America has spiked 95% since the war began [19].

Fertilizer and agriculture face compounding pressure. Over 30% of global urea — produced from natural gas and widely used in farming — is exported from Gulf countries through the strait [19][20]. Urea prices have risen 50% since the war began, and diammonium phosphate prices have followed [19]. The Food Policy Institute has warned of long-term increases in food prices as fertilizer and energy costs make basic food production significantly more expensive [17].

Shipping costs have surged. Vessels that previously transited Hormuz must now reroute around the Cape of Good Hope, adding weeks to voyages [19]. The US Postal Service, Amazon, and FedEx have implemented fuel surcharges [19]. Around a third of global seaborne methanol trade passes through the strait, tightening chemical supply chains, particularly for China as the world's largest methanol buyer [20].

Source: BLS / Bureau of Labor Statistics

Data as of Mar 1, 2026CSV

Speculative Positioning and Market Integrity

The oil price surge reflects both genuine supply disruption and speculative activity — with troubling questions about the latter.

Physical crude prices have surged to record levels near $150 per barrel, far above futures prices, with the physical-futures disconnect becoming "increasingly acute" [6]. This gap suggests real supply scarcity rather than pure speculation.

However, the Financial Times documented three suspicious series of trades that preceded policy announcements. On March 23, $580 million in bets on falling oil prices were placed just 15 minutes before President Trump announced a postponement of attacks on Iran [6]. On April 7, $950 million in similar bets preceded a Trump-announced two-week ceasefire. On April 17, 7,990 lots of Brent crude futures worth an estimated $750 million were sold 20 minutes before Iran's foreign minister announced the strait was open for the ceasefire period [6]. These trades have prompted calls for investigation into possible insider trading.

Commodity Context founder Rory Johnston noted that any reopening of the strait would likely trigger an immediate $10–$20 drop in crude prices due to speculative positioning, but that relief would be temporary [21]. MST Financial's Kavonic warned that "the market may be underestimating how long the Strait could remain largely closed, and the scope for military escalations" [21].

Iran's Paradox: Profiting from Its Own Disruption

Iran's economic calculus is more complicated than it appears. In the initial weeks of the crisis, Iran actually profited from the closure. Between March 15 and April 14, Iran exported 55.22 million barrels at $90–$100+ per barrel, generating approximately $4.97 billion — a 40% increase over pre-war monthly revenue of roughly $3.45 billion [22]. Fewer barrels were sold, but each barrel generated far more income as global prices surged.

That advantage was short-lived. On April 13, the US imposed a naval blockade on Iran, deploying over 10,000 personnel, more than a dozen warships, and dozens of aircraft [12]. CENTCOM stated the blockade would be "enforced impartially against vessels of all nations entering or departing Iranian ports" [12]. As of the blockade's start, approximately 157.7 million barrels of Iranian oil remained on water, with 97.6% destined for China [22].

The International Monetary Fund estimates Iran's economy will shrink 6.1% in 2026, with inflation reaching 68.9% [6]. Senior Iranian officials reportedly warned President Pezeshkian that rebuilding the war-torn economy could take more than a decade [6]. The paradox — that Iran depends on the very waterway it has threatened and partially closed — has led some analysts to question the long-term credibility of Tehran's strategy, even as it continues to collect "toll fees" from some transiting vessels.

Legal Authority: A Constitutional Gray Zone

The legal basis for US military action against Iran remains contested. When President Trump initiated strikes on February 28, he notified Congress on March 2 in accordance with the War Powers Resolution of 1973, but cited his own Article II constitutional authority as Commander in Chief rather than any statutory authorization [23][24].

No existing Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) covers Iran. Yale Law professor Oona Hathaway called the strikes "blatantly illegal," arguing that presidents need congressional approval except in cases of imminent defense [24]. Senator Tim Kaine stated plainly: "The Constitution says no declaration of war without Congress" [24]. Senator Ruben Gallego called the action an "illegal war" [24].

The administration's Article 51 self-defense argument under the UN Charter is also disputed. The March 2 war powers report cited historical incidents — the 1979 hostage crisis, the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, the 1996 Khobar Towers attack — as evidence of Iranian hostility, but legal scholars at the JURIST legal commentary platform argued none constitute evidence of an "imminent" threat as required by Article 51 [23].

Representative Tom Barrett introduced a formal AUMF to provide congressional authorization while imposing limitations and safeguards [25]. Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith offered a more structural critique, arguing that legality debates are "meaningless" without congressional political will to actually constrain presidential power [24].

The War Powers Resolution requires the president to terminate force within 60–90 days unless Congress authorizes an extension. That clock has run well past its deadline, with no formal authorization vote having occurred.

Downstream Fallout: Who Bears the Cost If Prices Stay High

The Dallas Fed models three scenarios for prolonged disruption. If the closure lasts one quarter, WTI would average $98 per barrel before falling to $67–68 in subsequent quarters, with year-end GDP 0.2% below baseline [13]. A two-quarter closure pushes WTI to $115 per barrel and reduces annual GDP growth by 0.3 percentage points [13]. A three-quarter closure drives WTI to $132 per barrel and cuts annual GDP growth by 1.3 percentage points [13].

For developing countries, the consequences are more severe. UNCTAD reports that 3.4 billion people live in countries already spending more on debt service than on health or education [11]. Higher energy, fertilizer, and transport costs compound existing fiscal stress. In South America, oil-importing nations face "severe inflationary pressure, transport disruptions, and social unrest," even as exporters like Brazil and Venezuela see revenue windfalls [17].

The crisis has created a stark divide between nations with supply diversification and strategic reserves and those without. Japan and South Korea hold weeks of LNG reserves [7]. The United States, as a major producer itself, faces primarily price effects rather than physical shortage. But countries like Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan — which imported nearly two-thirds of their total LNG through the strait in 2025 — face the sharpest fiscal and social pressure [7].

What Comes Next

As of May 8, 2026, no resolution is in sight. The May 7 exchange of fire further damaged a ceasefire that both sides have repeatedly accused each other of breaching. A US official told Axios the exchange "did not constitute a resumption of the war" [1], but Iran described the US strikes as a violation and threatened retaliation.

The market, for now, is pricing in continued disruption. Brent crude remains above $100 per barrel. Physical crude trades near $150 [6]. The gap between futures and physical prices suggests that traders who have access to actual barrels see a tighter supply picture than the futures market reflects.

The question is no longer whether the Strait of Hormuz crisis will inflict global economic damage — it already has. The question is whether the damage remains at the current level, measured in hundreds of billions of dollars across trade disruption, higher energy costs, and slower growth, or whether it escalates further into the kind of full-blown energy shock that reshapes economies for a generation.