17JUN

Brent falls below its pre-war level

3 min read

10:21UTC

Brent crude fell more than 4% to a $72.64-$73.72 range on 25 June, dropping under its pre-war February level and erasing the war premium that had pushed it past $116 at the height of the IRGC closure.

← Back to Three records fall in one afternoon Jump to analysis ↓

SportDeveloping

Key takeaway

Oil has declared the war over at $72-73, but the minefield and the underwriters have not.

Brent Crude fell to a range of $72.64 to $73.72 on Thursday 25 June, down more than four per cent in a single session and below its pre-war February level⁠¹. Brent is the global oil benchmark that sets the price of roughly two-thirds of internationally traded crude, so its level feeds directly into petrol, diesel and inflation worldwide. The war premium that pushed it past $116 at the height of the IRGC closure is now entirely gone.

The fall extends a steady reversal. Brent traded at $76.14 only the day before, and held near $80.59 while Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) still enforced its Hormuz closure. Traders have now priced the benchmark below where it sat before the 28 February strikes, on the same morning the IRGC rejected the Oman corridor and ordered vessels onto Channel 16.

The market is pricing a normalisation the water has not delivered. Mines remain uncleared and need 40 to 50 days of minimum sweeping, foreign-flag commercial flow runs at a fraction of the pre-war 94 transits a day, and no Protection and Indemnity club has reinstated war-risk cover. Traders are treating the corps's threats as bluff and the Korean sailings as the true signal. Because the premium is fully priced out, a single mine strike or one boarding would reprice the entire curve with no buffer to absorb it.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Oil's global price is set by traders in markets like London, who buy and sell contracts based on what they expect the situation to be in the future. On Thursday, those traders decided the Iran crisis was effectively over and sold their 'war premium', the extra they had been charging because of the danger, pushing the price of oil below where it was before the war started. On the water, nothing has changed. Mines seeded by the IRGC in June remain uncleared. Shipping insurers still will not cover ships crossing the strait. And Iran's military declared that same morning that it would not accept the new safety route. Oil traders are betting everything will be fine; the mines and the insurers are not.

Deep Analysis

Root Causes

Futures markets price the expected outcome of a geopolitical resolution, not the physical state of the supply chain on the day of trading. The Korean transits and the diplomatic language of both Oman and the GCC signalled to algorithmic trading systems that the closure was ending, producing a cascade sell-off of the war premium regardless of whether ships could actually transit with cover.

Chinese buyers received Iranian crude throughout the conflict via the shadow fleet, suppressing the actual supply shortfall below the headline numbers implied by a closed Hormuz. With GL X now authorising Iranian oil sales through 21 August , the partial legalisation of those flows removed residual uncertainty about Chinese purchasing volumes, accelerating the premium sell-off.

A price floor no longer exists: because the premium is fully priced out, a single mine incident or IRGC boarding would reprice from zero premium rather than from a cushioned level. Spot price carries none of the tail-risk cost that physical insurance markets are still pricing at 20 times pre-war rates.

What could happen next?

Risk
Brent with zero war premium has no downside cushion: a single mine strike or IRGC boarding would produce a larger proportional price spike than any event during the conflict, because traders would be repricing from a fully discounted base.
Consequence
Gulf producer state budgets, sized for $80-90 Brent, move into deficit at sustained $72-73, pressuring Saudi Arabia in particular to push OPEC+ for production cuts that would reverse the price decline and contradict their diplomatic stance on Hormuz normalisation.

Source Landscape

This story draws on centre-right-leaning sources from United Arab Emirates

United Arab Emirates

Primary parallel: The Suez Canal closure (1967-75) shows the mechanism in reverse. When the canal shut after the Six-Day War, tanker markets priced a permanent Cape routing premium within weeks. When it reopened in 1975, crude prices did not fall immediately to pre-closure levels because the physical infrastructure for Suez routing had partially degraded.

Brent's current behaviour is the forward version: markets have priced reopening before the physical re-enablement conditions (mine clearance, P&I reinstatement) exist, exactly the inverse error of 1975.

Counter-parallel: The 1990 Gulf War oil shock shows the opposite error: crude spiked from $17 to $46 within three months of Iraq's Kuwait invasion, pricing a supply catastrophe that never fully materialised because Saudi Arabia raised production within 30 days. In 1990, traders overweighted the supply shock. In 2026, traders appear to be underweighting the physical constraint.

Brent at $72-73 sits below the fiscal breakeven for Saudi Arabia (approximately $80-90), Kuwait (approximately $65), and Iran itself (approximately $80-90 pre-war). At current levels, Gulf producer state budgets move into deficit within a quarter at sustained prices. For Iran, lower Brent reduces the value of the oil revenue GL X unlocks.

London P&I hull war-risk cover remains at 2% of vessel value, 20 times the pre-conflict baseline, meaning the physical cost of transit has not moved even as the futures price has. Two tiers now operate simultaneously: buyers who can self-insure or access shadow fleet cover (primarily Chinese state companies) pay spot price; buyers who require London P&I cover pay spot plus 2% of vessel value per crossing plus freight-rate premium, which at a $150 million vessel represents $3 million per transit.

Consensus view: Oxford Economics' commodity research team and the Energy Policy Research Group at Cambridge assess Brent's fall below pre-war levels as a forward-loading error: futures markets priced a diplomatic settlement as equivalent to physical reopening, ignoring the 40-50 day mine-clearance lag and the continued absence of P&I cover.

The divergence between spot price and physical availability is the largest since the 2008 financial crisis inverted the oil curve, when demand destruction was priced in advance of production adjustment.

Counter-view: Beijing's National Development and Reform Commission energy analysts and researchers at the China Energy Security Institute argue the Brent move is structurally correct: Chinese buyers never stopped receiving Iranian barrels through the shadow fleet, so the physical disruption was always smaller than Western indices implied. Brent's return to pre-war levels reflects a partial restoration of non-Western supply chains rather than a mispriced settlement.

Key tension: Whether oil markets are rationally pricing the shadow fleet as the effective supply normaliser, making the mine and insurance constraints a tail risk rather than the base case, or whether they are systemically discounting a physical chokepoint that the shadow fleet cannot fully substitute for.

First Reported In

Update #138 · Three flags over Hormuz, none enforced

Gulf News· 25 Jun 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

Caused by

Trump orders a DOJ oil-gouging probe

Brent fell from $76.14 on 24 June (ID:4468) to $72.64-$73.72 on 25 June, erasing the war premium across two sessions.

Occurred 24 Jun 2026

Read story →

Brent shrugs off the IRGC closure

Brent at $80.59 during the IRGC closure has now fully reversed to below pre-war levels as markets price the threat as bluff.

Occurred 20 Jun 2026

Read story →

IRGC rejects the Oman Hormuz route

Markets priced Brent below the war premium on the same morning the IRGC rejected the Oman corridor, treating the corps's mandate as unenforceable.

Occurred 25 Jun 2026

Read story →

This Event

Brent falls below its pre-war level

The oil market has priced the Iran conflict as over while the strait stays mined, uninsured and contested, leaving no cushion against a reversal.

Led to

Brent falls straight through the strikes

Brent's $71.99 settle on 26 June continued the war-premium erasure from $72.64-$73.72 on 25 June, falling further through the kinetic exchange.

Occurred 26 Jun 2026

Read story →

Different Perspectives

French Football Federation

The FFF called an 11:00 CEST press conference for 28 July, at its Paris headquarters, following an extraordinary executive committee meeting, at which Zinedine Zidane is expected to be presented as head coach succeeding Didier Deschamps. As of this writing no communique confirms the appointment, contract length or start date.

Morocco

Morocco is pushing for the 2030 final at its Grand Stade Hassan II in Casablanca, a planned 115,000-seat venue that would be the world's largest football stadium on completion. The venue is contested by a Spanish petition for the Santiago Bernabeu, and FIFA has fixed neither the venue nor the tournament's proposed 64-team format.

FIFA

FIFA's first tournament report, published 27 July, itemises nearly 300,000 accredited personnel, 73,700 security staff and 300,000 square metres of custom-grown turf, with no revenue or cost figure attached. As a Swiss association answering to its own Congress rather than a treasury, FIFA has followed the same operational-before-financial sequence it used after Qatar 2022.

Javier Tebas / La Liga

La Liga president Javier Tebas said on 21 July that FIFA's system is rotten from the root and that Gianni Infantino's time as president has, in his words, concluded. Tebas has no vote in FIFA's process, so days after the IOC declined jurisdiction over a separate ethics complaint, he used the only instrument he has.

Mexico City government

Head of government Clara Brugada presented a closing report on 22 July crediting the tournament with 44 billion pesos of economic activity, 2,000-plus accelerated public works and 100,000 formal jobs in June alone. The city has not published the method behind that figure, and three other Mexican bodies count the same five weeks differently.

Town of Foxborough

Foxborough answered Kraft Group's June lawsuit on 7 July with a 61-page counterclaim, calling the stadium's owners 'a collection of multibillion-dollar corporations' trying to shift its $7.8 million security bill onto taxpayers. The town says its licensing power and its billing power run through the same board, and it wants the court to award its own costs too.