Skip to content
Briefings are running a touch slower this week while we rebuild the foundations.See roadmap
Iran Conflict 2026
24MAY

JP Morgan raises recession odds to 35%

4 min read
14:49UTC

JP Morgan raised its recession probability to 35%, with one variable dominating the model: whether the Strait of Hormuz stays closed.

← Back to Trump says deal; OFAC says nothingJump to analysis ↓
ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

Markets are betting on containment, but JP Morgan's 35% recession probability signals that institutional risk desks now treat a severe economic shock as a plausible base case, not a tail event.

JP Morgan raised its recession probability estimate to 35% on Saturday, identifying the Strait of Hormuz disruption as the primary variable. Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan both project oil at $110–130 per barrel if the conflict persists — a range that would send inflationary shocks through supply chains, transport costs, and consumer prices in every import-dependent economy.

The distance between current prices and that projection is the market's measure of confidence in containment. Brent at $82 — up from $73 before the strikes — assumes the Hormuz closure is temporary. The IRGC broadcast its blockade on VHF Channel 16 on the first day of strikes , and no commercial shipping is currently transiting. But Mohsen Rezai, secretary of Iran's Expediency Council, introduced ambiguity on Saturday by declaring the strait "officially open" while calling US warships "legitimate targets" — a formulation that deters commercial traffic while leaving a diplomatic off-ramp. The earlier IRGC closure broadcast has not been rescinded. Markets appear to read Rezai's contradictory statements as a signal that Tehran does not intend a permanent blockade.

The 35% figure is conditional, not predictive. It says: if the conflict follows the trajectory markets expect — contained air campaign, no ground troops, Hormuz reopening within weeks — the global economy absorbs the shock. If any of those assumptions breaks, the repricing will not be incremental. The 1973 Arab oil embargo removed roughly 7% of global supply and quadrupled prices within months. A sustained Hormuz closure would remove a larger share of traded volume.

For oil-importing economies in South Asia and East Africa — countries with no voice in this conflict and no capacity to absorb energy price spikes — the difference between $82 oil and $130 oil is not a market event. It is a food security crisis. JP Morgan's 35% probability is a number calibrated for portfolio risk. The human consequences at the upper end of that range extend well beyond what a recession probability captures.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Two of the world's largest banks — JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs — are warning that if this conflict drags on and Iran disrupts the Strait of Hormuz (a narrow waterway through which roughly one-fifth of global oil passes), oil could hit $110–130 a barrel, compared to around $73 before the strikes. JP Morgan has raised its estimate of a global recession to 35% — meaning roughly a one-in-three chance that the world economy shrinks. Right now, oil is at $82, which suggests most traders still expect the conflict to stay contained and the strait to stay open. But that assumption could be shattered quickly if the situation worsens.

Deep Analysis
Synthesis

The JP Morgan recession estimate and the Goldman/JP Morgan oil projections represent the financial system's formal acknowledgement that this conflict has crossed a threshold. Prior Iran-related risk premiums — the 2019 tanker attacks, the 2020 Soleimani assassination, the 2024 direct strike exchange — were all repriced back to baseline within days. The current premium has held for 48 hours alongside active hostilities, which is qualitatively different. The divergence between market pricing (contained scenario) and institutional forecasts (severe scenario) creates a binary risk structure: if containment holds, markets normalise; if it does not, the next repricing will be discontinuous and severe. The 35% recession estimate is the clearest signal that institutional actors are no longer treating the severe scenario as negligible.

Root Causes

The Strait of Hormuz is a structural chokepoint with no viable bypass for most Gulf producers. Saudi Arabia's East-West pipeline and the UAE's Fujairah pipeline together can reroute perhaps 4–5 million barrels per day, far below the approximately 20 million barrels that transit Hormuz daily. Iran has invested decades in asymmetric Hormuz denial capabilities — mines, fast-attack craft, anti-ship missiles, Houthi-analogous proxy networks — precisely because its conventional military cannot match US or Israeli power projection. The threat is therefore not theoretical but operationally credible, and markets are now pricing this reality for the first time since the 2019 tanker attacks.

Escalation

The current Brent price of $82.37 — an 11% premium on pre-strike levels of approximately $73 — represents a meaningful but not catastrophic risk premium. The gap between $82 and the $110–130 Goldman Sachs/JP Morgan shock scenario is the market's implicit estimate of the probability that Hormuz disruption remains limited. JP Morgan's 35% recession estimate, however, is substantially above the 15–20% baseline the bank maintained through 2025, and reflects genuine institutional concern rather than routine caution. Each additional week of Iranian retaliatory capacity — demonstrated by the 137 missiles and 209 drones directed at UAE territory alone — narrows the gap between current prices and the severe scenario. The escalation trajectory is currently lateral-to-upward: the market has absorbed the opening phase but has not yet priced a prolonged campaign.

What could happen next?
2 risk1 consequence1 meaning1 opportunity
  • Risk

    If Hormuz disruption persists beyond two weeks, oil prices could approach the $110–130 Goldman Sachs/JP Morgan shock range, triggering a second, sharper global market repricing.

    Short term · Assessed
  • Risk

    JP Morgan's 35% recession probability, if the conflict prolongs, would translate into reduced consumer spending, tighter credit conditions, and potential emerging-market debt stress.

    Medium term · Assessed
  • Consequence

    Aviation, shipping, and petrochemical sectors face immediate margin compression at current $82 Brent levels; sustained prices above $100 would force capacity reductions and fare increases.

    Immediate · Assessed
  • Meaning

    The divergence between current market pricing and institutional projections creates a binary risk structure with no gradual middle path — containment holds or it breaks sharply.

    Short term · Assessed
  • Opportunity

    Non-Gulf oil producers — US shale, North Sea, West African — stand to benefit substantially from sustained elevated prices if the conflict reduces Gulf supply.

    Short term · Suggested
Sources:Bloomberg
Mentions:Expediency Discernment Council →National Security Council (Iran) →Brent Crude →Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) →Tehran →Iran →Nikkei →Goldman Sachs →Strait of Hormuz →Dow futures →European futures →JPMorgan Chase →
First Reported In

Update #6 · Pentagon produced no evidence for Iran war

Bloomberg· 1 Mar 2026
Read original →
Causes and effects
Caused by
IRGC closes Hormuz; 20% of world oil cut
JP Morgan recession probability driven primarily by Strait of Hormuz disruption
Occurred 1 Mar 2026
Read story →
This Event
JP Morgan raises recession odds to 35%
The recession probability estimate quantifies the economic stakes of the Hormuz closure — the single factor most likely to determine whether the Iran conflict produces a manageable energy price increase or a global supply shock with food security consequences for import-dependent economies.
Different Perspectives
Lloyd's of London
Lloyd's of London
The Joint War Committee left Hormuz war-risk premiums at $10-14 million per voyage on 25 May, declining to move on Brent's 5% fall. The JWC's protocol requires a UN Security Council resolution or bilateral government certification letter before de-listing, and neither has arrived: a verbal understanding does not satisfy the formal condition the reinsurance market's treaty terms require.
Gulf Arab producers
Gulf Arab producers
Saudi Arabia and UAE depend on Hormuz for their own crude exports; Aramco CEO Nasser has warned no oil market recovery arrives until 2027 if the blockade continues past mid-June. Monday's $98.96 Brent settlement shortens nothing for Gulf producers without a signed instrument and a Pentagon mine-clearance timeline that runs up to six months post-ceasefire.
Qatar
Qatar
Qatar holds $12bn of frozen Iranian assets at the centre of the sequencing dispute but cannot release them without explicit US Treasury authorisation, given the original freeze was a US instrument. As the asset-holding state, Qatar's leverage is real but passive: it is the escrow holder, not the decision-maker, and any resolution requires US Treasury sign-off that Trump has withheld.
Pakistan
Pakistan
With both Prime Minister Sharif and army chief Munir simultaneously in Beijing on 25 May, Pakistan has for the first time consolidated its civilian and military mediation tracks under China's roof. Munir's direct Tehran-to-Beijing flight signals that the security and financial threads of the sequencing problem are now being worked in parallel rather than sequentially.
China
China
Beijing hosted Pakistan's principal mediators and Iran's China envoy Ghalibaf simultaneously on 25 May while its banking regulator capped new state-bank lending to five sanctioned refiners. China is simultaneously the most credible third-party underwriter of the $12bn sequencing and the state whose institutions face live OFAC secondary-sanctions exposure if the deadlock persists through GL V's expiry.
United States
United States
Trump posted on 24 May that the blockade holds until a deal is certified and signed, ruling out the informal MOU structure both sides had been building. The 'certified, and signed' condition is the first operational bar Trump has attached in 87 days, but it arrived without an executive instrument, maintaining the gap between posted ultimatum and signed US policy.