The pre-strike $150–200 oil price forecast rested on two assumptions: that Iran would execute a formal Hormuz blockade using mining and naval interdiction, and that the conflict would persist long enough for physical supply to be severely constrained. Neither condition materialised on 28 February. Iran's response comprised ballistic missile strikes, not naval interdiction; tanker avoidance is voluntary and reversible; and Saudi Arabia retains spare production capacity to partially offset any Gulf supply disruption.
A rise from $73 to $80 represents a 10% increase. At $100, the increase is 37% — still inflationary but below the recession-triggering threshold implied by $150–200 modelling. At $100, European economies already managing the energy cost legacy of the Russia-Ukraine war face additional pressure, as do emerging markets with dollar-denominated energy import bills. The Bloomberg tanker-avoidance reporting and Euronews analyst consensus both point to the $80–100 range as the February 28 baseline estimate.
The $150–200 scenario remains a live tail risk rather than a falsified prediction. It materialises if the conflict extends to include Iranian naval action in Hormuz, prolonged tanker avoidance beyond two to three weeks, or destruction of Saudi or UAE production infrastructure. Markets are pricing a shorter and more contained conflict than the worst-case scenario assumed — not ruling out further escalation.
