3JUN

Brent at $112 as Houthis enter the war

2 min read

09:04UTC

Oil climbed 4.2% to $112.57 as the Houthi attacks added a second chokepoint threat to a market already pricing in near-total Hormuz closure.

← Back to Washington signs a sanction, not a strike Jump to analysis ↓

ConflictAssessed

Key takeaway

Brent's 51% monthly gain reflects dual-chokepoint risk not yet fully priced by markets.

Brent Crude settled at $112.57 on 28 March, up $4.56 (4.22%), driven by Houthi entry into the conflict ¹. WTI crossed $100 for the first time since the Houthi escalation began. The monthly gain of approximately 51% is the largest single-month increase since the COVID recovery in mid-2021. Goldman Sachs estimates a $14 to $18 per barrel geopolitical risk premium is already baked into the price.

The Majlis Hormuz toll bill is expected to be finalised this week. Passage would embed Hormuz control in Iranian domestic law, making it constitutionally harder for any future negotiator to concede the point. The de facto $2 million per-voyage toll is already operational, denominated in Chinese yuan, with refusal to pay triggering boarding by IRGC naval forces. IEA demand destruction (growth revised down 210,000 barrels per day) suggests the price surge is partly offset by recession-driven demand collapse .

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Oil has risen 51% in 29 days, from about $67 per barrel before the war to $112.57. For comparison, petrol in the UK is now roughly £3.50 to £3.70 per litre where it was under £2.20 before the conflict. The immediate driver is the near-total closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world's oil normally flows. The Houthi entry into the conflict on 28 March added another 4.22% to the price in a single day. The Iranian parliament is expected to pass a law this week making the Hormuz toll permanent under Iranian domestic legislation. If it does, markets will likely price in a longer-term disruption, pushing prices higher still.

Source Landscape

This story draws on mixed-leaning sources from United States

United States

Primary parallel: The 1973 Arab oil embargo produced a 300% price increase in five months. The current 51% increase in 29 days is faster in velocity but remains lower in absolute terms. Both events triggered recessions in oil-importing economies.

Counter-parallel: In 1973, the US had no domestic shale production; the energy transition had not begun; and there were no strategic petroleum reserves of comparable scale. The IEA's 400 million barrel release is a buffer the world did not have in 1973.

Brent's 51% monthly gain represents the largest single-month increase since mid-2021. The Majlis toll bill, expected to pass this week, would embed a $2 million per-vessel toll structure in Iranian domestic law. Passage would likely trigger a further market repricing as the duration premium on the disruption extends.

At $112.57 per barrel, UK retail petrol prices are approximately £3.40 to £3.70 per litre depending on refinery margin assumptions. Goldman Sachs's $14 to $18 geopolitical risk premium implies the underlying commodity cost would fall to $94 to $98 if the conflict ended tomorrow. The IEA's demand revision of -210,000 b/d signals early recession pressure that may widen if prices remain elevated through May.

Consensus view: Goldman Sachs commodity research and JP Morgan energy strategy desks both identify a $14 to $18 per barrel geopolitical risk premium in current Brent pricing above fundamentals, noting that markets are not yet pricing the full demand-destruction scenario because the war's duration remains uncertain.

Counter-view: Saudi Aramco's investment committee and OPEC Secretariat economists warn that the recession signal in IEA demand data (-210,000 b/d revision) may accelerate faster than the geopolitical premium sustains; a demand-driven price collapse could occur simultaneously with supply disruption.

Key tension: Whether the Majlis Hormuz toll bill passage this week, converting de facto IRGC control into domestic law, will force markets to price in a permanent rather than temporary Hormuz disruption, triggering the next price surge.

Sources:International Energy Agency·CNBC

Mentions:Strait of Hormuz →Iran →Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) →International Energy Agency →Majlis →

First Reported In

Update #51 · Iran hits aluminium plants; Hormuz emptying

International Energy Agency· 29 Mar 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

Caused by

Brent at $112 as Houthis join the war

Brent's 4.22% surge to $112.57 reflects the compounding economic impact of Houthi entry into the conflict adding demand-side uncertainty.

Occurred 28 Mar 2026

Read story →

This Event

Brent at $112 as Houthis enter the war

Brent's 51% monthly gain is the largest since the COVID recovery in mid-2021, and the Majlis Hormuz toll bill expected this week could convert the de facto closure into permanent law.

Led to

Brent above $116, set for record month

Brent at $112.57 on 28 March (ID:1695) advanced further to above $116 by 30 March, driven by Trump's oil seizure statement and the third consecutive Houthi attack on Israel.

Occurred 30 Mar 2026

Read story →

Different Perspectives

Oil markets and Lloyd's of London

Brent fell to $89.25 on ceasefire probability, not new barrels, with traders voting for Trump's deed over Tehran's denial. Lloyd's has not repriced Hormuz war-risk cover because its trigger requires a UN Security Council resolution or government certification, so tanker insurance costs remain elevated regardless of the spot move.

Pakistan and Qatar mediators

Pakistan's Mohsin Naqvi was in Tehran for his second visit in under a week, using the Pakistan-Qatar channel that delivered April's ceasefire after an identical public-denial cycle. The channel carries both civilian and military buy-in from Islamabad, the only configuration Iran's split command cannot dismiss as a partial signal.

India

India summoned the US Deputy Chief of Mission after three Indian sailors were killed aboard MT Settebello, the first formal grievance from a major non-belligerent directed at US enforcement. Indian seafarers supply roughly 12 per cent of the global maritime workforce; their presence on third-flag Gulf tankers is structurally inevitable regardless of bilateral diplomacy.

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)

The IRGC declared Hormuz closed on 11 June while civilian negotiators were on the same mediation channel, then issued no public comment on the MoU framework. Its silence on the framework, rather than any foreign ministry statement, is the operative approval signal; the corps' unilateral Hormuz closure shows it did not treat the diplomatic track as binding on its operations.

Iran foreign ministry (Baghaei)

Esmail Baghaei told IRNA that reports of a finalised deal were 'merely speculation' and that Iran had 'not yet made a final decision'. The denial is structurally identical to Iranian foreign ministry statements during the April ceasefire talks, which produced a binding text within 48 hours of the same language.

Trump administration / CENTCOM

Trump cancelled the third strike day and called the MoU 'very strong' and almost ready to sign, while CENTCOM kept tanker enforcement running in the same 24-hour window. The administration is simultaneously withdrawing the military pressure it claims drove the deal and sustaining the enforcement campaign it is trying to trade away.