ConflictClarifier

2026伊朗-海湾危机追踪
CC
Events Archive
strikeApr 14, 2026

Sky-high prices for physical barrels reveals the real turmoil in oil markets

Summary

As volatile as oil futures have been, current prices suggest global shortages caused by the war in the Middle East are a fleeting problem. Sky-high prices for physical barrels, however, highlight worries over an unprecedented supply crisis. Over the past week, international benchmark Brent crude contracts surged above US$111 a barrel after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to destroy Iran’s power plants and civil infrastructure. They then fell well below US$100 after the two sides agreed on a two-week ceasefire. Even without a resolution to end the war, futures have weakened further. Brent settled down 4.6 per cent at US$94.79 on Tuesday. But the world is still grappling with the largest-ever loss of oil supply as tanker traffic remains halted in the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway that has become the main economic flashpoint of the conflict. Iran and the United States are both blockading shipping in the strait, through which as much as 20 per cent of the world’s oil normally transits. IMF downgrades global economic outlook as Mideast war drives oil shock Iran war upends IEA’s global oil market outlook, with demand seen contracting by 80,000 bpd The price of oil for prompt delivery in Europe has surged to a record near US$150 a barrel. The gap between that and the futures price shows how fears of physical shortages are worsening among global refiners, prompting them to scramble for replacement supplies, the International Energy Agency said Tuesday. Global oil supplies dwindled by 10.1 million barrels a day in March to 97 million a day, the IEA said in its monthly oil market report. The drop was the result of shut-in wells and Iranian attacks on Persian Gulf energy infrastructure, as well as the severely restricted shipping through the strait, the IEA said. After peace talks failed to reach a resolution to the conflict last weekend, the U.S. directed its navy to blockade Iranian ports to prevent crude exports from the Islamic Republic, limiting supply even more. Messaging from Mr. Trump and his administration has been more effective at limiting futures prices than expected at the beginning of the war, said Helima Croft, head of global commodity strategy and MENA research at RBC Capital Markets. Many analysts predicted prices could surge as high as US$200 a barrel, but they have remained below US$120. “That said, the physical market warning signs continue to flash red, with differentials broadly strengthening further last week as physical market participants fail to envision near-term relief for ongoing tightness,” Ms. Croft wrote in a report. Shortages have been most acute in Asia, where the lion’s share of Gulf crude is consumed, and especially in countries without large strategic reserves. Many of them have imposed fuel-saving policies. Pakistan and the Philippines have mandated a four-day work week for public officials, Bangladesh has closed universities and limited air-conditioner temperatures, and Sri Lanka has instituted a QR-code-based system for fuel rationing. Airlines across Asia are trimming flight schedules owing to surging jet fuel prices and depleted supplies. These measures and more prompted the IEA to cut its forecast for oil demand this year to a drop of 80,000 barrels a day from its previous projection of an increase of 650,000. The Paris-based energy watchdog also forecast a 1.5-million-barrel-a-day decline in demand for the second quarter of this year – the largest drop since the COVID-19 pandemic prompted governments to shut down large parts of their economies. Meanwhile, countries are drawing down emergency reserves, with stockpiles falling by 85 million barrels in March. Stocks in importing Asian countries dropped by 31 million barrels in March and more declines are expected this month, the IEA said. The agency’s 32 member countries began releasing emergency supplies last month, earmarking a total of 400 million barrels to ease shortages. “Resuming flows through the Strait of Hormuz remains the single most important variable in easing the pressure on energy supplies, prices and the global economy,” the IEA said in its report. In proceeding with a U.S. blockade of Iranian oil, Mr. Trump could be trying to push China into getting involved in negotiations to reopen the Strait of Hormuz as its refineries face the loss of Iran’s supply, Ms. Croft said. However, it’s not clear that China would want to get entangled in the conflict, as it built up large strategic reserves before the war began, and it may be realizing strategic benefits from the U.S. moving military assets away from Asia, she said. North America, meanwhile, is not facing oil shortages as Canada and the U.S. are net exporters. But consumers are struggling with higher prices for fuel and other products that require shipping, such as food and basic household items. On Tuesday, Canada joined numerous countries around the world in announcing temporary tax breaks on gasoline and diesel fuel.

Actors involved

USIranChina

Sources

  • Jeffrey JonesBy Jeffrey Jones

    As volatile as oil futures have been, current prices suggest global shortages caused by the war in the Middle East are a fleeting problem. Sky-high prices for physical barrels, however, highlight worries over an unprecedented supply crisis. Over the past week, international bench

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

The US and its allies Britain, France and Germany are pushing other countries on the UN nuclear watchdog's board to pass a resolution next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, diplomats said on Friday. If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

The US launched an air war against Tehran on February 28 in which, together with Israel, it destroyed or badly damaged Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities. Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

Resolution would be culmination of standoff over IAEA's access to nuclear sites A resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

A draft text for the resolution has yet to be formally submitted to the board and negotiations between countries over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. A draft is usually formally submitted early in the week of a board meeting. As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes.

Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons. It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making a bomb. The amount it has enriched to that level is "a matter of serious concern" to the IAEA. The IAEA believes well over 200 kg of that highly enriched uranium has survived the bombardments and is held in a tunnel complex at Isfahan and at the Natanz facility.

Location: Jerusalem
strikeUnverifiedUSIranChina
1 source

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on the Turkish bank Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi, alleging it facilitated the transfer of Iranian oil revenues into cash and gold. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated these measures are part of "Operation Economic Outcast," an initiative launched following more than six months of conflict to pressure Iran.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranEURussiaChinaUkraineHamas
1 source

Rabobank reported that geopolitical developments, including Russian statements regarding potential peace talks in Ukraine and US-Iran hostilities, continue to dominate market sentiment, though analysts noted these claims remain unverified. The bank also cited unconfirmed reports that South Korea may deploy forces to the Strait of Hormuz and that Israel has stated regime change in Tehran is a primary objective, while noting that Ukrainian media reports of an impending northern Russian offensive lack independent verification.

Location: Tehran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranRussiaUkraine
1 source

The White House is now apparently using Russian tactics to convince the American public that the war in Iran is not, in fact, a war. When asked by reporters at the White House on Thursday whether the most intense sustained air campaign by American forces since the invasion of Iraq would be over by the midterms, Vice President JD Vance replied: “I wouldn’t call it a war.

” Vladimir Putin said much the same thing when he invaded Ukraine. Russia was not fighting a war either, the Kremlin insisted; it was merely conducting a “special military operation.” If that comparison strikes you as shocking, consider the contours of the two conflicts.

A vastly more powerful military launched a punishing offensive against a smaller, less well-equipped adversary, inflicted enormous damage without achieving a decisive resolution, and then found itself drawn into a longer, grinding conflict with no clear way out.

The motivations behind the wars may be different, and they’re playing out in different theaters, but the pattern is eerily similar. Now, so too is the attempt by those in power to control how the public understands, and even what it is allowed to call, the obvious war unfolding in front of them.

If This Isn’t a War, What Is? Let us take a moment to assess what exactly has happened since February 28, when the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury. The opening U.S.-Israeli attack killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, along with the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the defense minister and various other senior officials.

According to the U.S. military’s own accounting, the first 38 days of major combat operations involved more than 10,200 sorties and 13,500 strikes. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) says those attacks damaged or destroyed more than 85 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and naval defense industrial base, while knocking out 82 percent of its air-defense missile systems.

The U.S. sent carrier strike groups and warships into the region, later imposing a military blockade on Iranian ports. Meanwhile, American and allied air defenses intercepted more than 6,000 Iranian attack drones and 1,500 ballistic missiles fired at U.

S. forces, Israel and American partners across the Middle East. More than 50,000 U.S. service members remain deployed across the region. The fighting has killed 18 U.S. service members and at least 8,000 people across Iran, Lebanon, Israel and the Gulf states.

More than 750 U.S. service members have been wounded. Last month, during a lull in the fighting, the U.S. Treasury unveiled a sanctions package likened to an “economic D-day” that is designed to make Iran an “economic outcast” and cut the adversary off from all available forms of economic support.

In the announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly declared that Iran had been “at war against America” for 47 years. This week, the shooting resumed; the U.S. hit targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran blasted missiles at targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Iraq.

All this from an administration that almost exactly a year ago launched a rapid rebrand of the Defense Department into the “Department of War”. No boots on the ground, though, so it’s not a war, right? Tell It Kind of Like It Is Even the very best snake-oil salesman would have a hard time convincing people that the war in Iran isn’t a war.

So why is JD Vance even trying? Well, if there’s one thing politicians understand better than anyone, it’s the importance of language and rhetoric. Words have immense power; a well-written speech can unite millions of people, and a catchy slogan like Make America Great Again can come to represent an entire political philosophy.

But war is a pesky word. For one, it implies there will eventually be a winner and a loser. It also brings with it certain expectations—and some very difficult questions. What is the objective? How many people will die? When will it end? And, perhaps most dangerously of all: was it worth it?

Those are not questions the White House wants Americans to be asking. Trump built a substantial part of his political identity around ending, rather than beginning, America’s “endless wars.” When Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding in June, the White House presented it as proof that Trump’s America First approach could deliver peace without another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

Then the hostilities started again. Earlier this week, Trump shared a Truth Social graphic declaring that “Hormuz Oil Volumes are BACK!”, saying 18 million barrels a day were once again leaving the Strait, compared with 20 million before the war. No independent commodity tracking company or energy analyst appeared to verify Trump’s claims.

But most Americans won’t be checking tanker-tracking dashboards. What they’ll care about is the cold, hard fact that diesel hit a new record price this morning, soaring to an average of $5.85 a gallon for the first time ever. Gasoline is $4.15 a gallon on average, compared with $3.

20 at this time last year, according to AAA. The numbers on the sign at the gas station and the price on the grocery receipt aren’t affected by Trump’s tall tales, but they’ll surely affect how Americans vote at the midterms. When viewed in this light, Vance’s attempt to discourage reporters from “call[ing] it a war” begins to make sense.

A war is something that we want to end. It tends to result in a winner and a loser. And its worth is up for debate at all times. A different kind of engagement that doesn’t quite meet the threshold of war—say, a special military operation—is not exposed to the same kind of scrutiny.

Vance effectively made that case himself. “When you ask, ‘When will this end?’ You’re asking me a question like, ‘When will the Iranians stop shooting at ships?’” he said. By that logic, there is no American war—only recurring Iranian provocations that require American military responses.

That’s exactly the logic applied by Putin to Ukraine and supposed expansion of NATO. Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly invoked the War Powers Resolution to challenge Trump’s authority to keep fighting Iran without specific congressional authorization.

The law generally gives a president 60 days after U.S. forces enter “hostilities” to secure congressional approval or bring those hostilities to an end. That makes the pauses in fighting hugely important. When the original 60-day deadline arrived in May, Trump told Congress that the temporary ceasefire reached in April meant the hostilities that began on February 28 had ended.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the War Powers clock could “pause, or stop” when the shooting did. That position is disputed by legal experts, but its political utility is obvious. If every new outbreak of fighting can be treated as a separate skirmish, rather than part of one continuous war, the administration can argue that a fresh 60-day clock starts each time.

Vance’s insistence that there is no continuing “war” fits neatly for an administration that has already tried to divide six months of conflict into separate periods of hostilities, interrupted by ceasefires and pauses. This brings us back to Moscow.

The Kremlin’s own linguistic trick was also about making one sprawling war sound smaller, more limited and more manageable than it really was. From the very beginning of the invasion, Putin described the war as a special military operation. Only after two years of grinding warfare did Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov openly declare Russia to be in a “state of war”—and even then, he said the transformation had occurred because the “collective West” had joined the fight against Russia.

Vance is playing a similar game, but in reverse. Only now—with soaring fuel prices, mounting casualties, concerns over the military’s munitions stockpiles, and midterm elections on the horizon—is the conflict no longer a war. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, though, and the American people aren’t stupid.

Vance and the White House may discover in November that voters are perfectly capable of recognizing a war, even when the vice president doesn’t want to call it one.

Location: Iran