Skip to content
You can now search across every topic, entity and event.What's new
Iran Conflict 2026
15JUN

Brent slips to $94.71 the day Hormuz is declared shut

4 min read
11:40UTC

Brent eased about 1.7 per cent to $94.71 on 11 June, with WTI near $91.84, pulling back from the prior day's peak even as the IRGC declared the Strait of Hormuz closed.

ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

Oil fell the day Hormuz was declared shut, the market betting the closure is words, not a sealed strait.

Brent Crude eased about 1.7 per cent to $94.71 on 11 June, with WTI near $91.84, on the very day the IRGC declared Hormuz closed to all traffic. The move was a pullback from the $96.34 peak Brent reached on 10 June , and it came after CENTCOM said its strikes were complete. A closure announcement that sends oil down, rather than up, is the market reading the words and discounting them.

A strait genuinely sealed, with enforcement that held, does not let crude fall. Traders priced the IRGC order as rhetoric, weighing it against CENTCOM's denial that transit had stopped and against the absence of any independently verified incident. The "strikes complete" line did the rest, removing the immediate threat of further escalation that had driven the prior day's spike.

Futures and insurance now point opposite ways. The futures market is betting the closure is a declaration that will lapse, while marine insurers are repricing the legal risk of a war-risk zone that exists on paper whether or not a ship is ever stopped. The gap between the two prices is the gap between what the IRGC said and what anyone can confirm it did.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

The price of oil dropped slightly on the day Iran's military declared the Strait of Hormuz closed. That sounds backwards. Usually, closing a major oil route would send prices up, because less supply reaching markets means higher costs. Traders weighted CENTCOM's 'strikes complete' statement over the IRGC's Telegram post, driving Brent down 1.7 per cent to $94.71 rather than up. The US military said ships were still sailing through normally, and Iran's military has threatened to close the strait before without following through. So oil markets took the closure announcement as words on a screen, not an actual blockage. However, shipping insurance companies, which move more slowly and need official government sign-offs to change their assessments, did not drop their risk premiums. This means the cost of actually insuring a cargo ship through the strait stayed high even as the headline oil price fell.

What could happen next?
  • Risk

    If Windward or Kpler record transit volumes falling below three vessels in a 24-hour window, futures markets will reprice immediately and the Brent discount will reverse sharply, likely to above $100.

    Immediate · Assessed
  • Consequence

    Lloyd's of London's continued war-risk listing of Hormuz means every cargo transiting the strait now carries an elevated insurance cost regardless of futures pricing, increasing the effective landed cost of Gulf oil for European refiners.

    Short term · Reported
  • Meaning

    Markets pricing CENTCOM's 'strikes complete' statement as a de-escalation signal over the IRGC's closure declaration shows that traders have shifted their primary price signal from Iranian statements to US operational announcements.

    Immediate · Assessed
First Reported In

Update #124 · IRGC declares Hormuz shut; US strikes again

Gulf News / NBC News / Business Standard· 11 Jun 2026
Read original
Different Perspectives
G7 Leaders (ex-US)
G7 Leaders (ex-US)
Kananaskis ended without a joint communique for the first time in the body's history; Macron credited G7 pressure with speeding the ceasefire while Trump publicly denied the summit played any role. The split between US and European G7 partners over what the memorandum means for sanctions relief was the direct cause of the text failure.
Protection-and-Indemnity insurers
Protection-and-Indemnity insurers
London-based P&I mutual clubs declined to underwrite Hormuz crossings while the IRGC Strait Authority remained operational, making the passage commercially impassable regardless of the memorandum's terms. Shipping operators said they would wait weeks for on-water conditions to change before routing tankers through.
IRGC Persian Gulf Strait Authority
IRGC Persian Gulf Strait Authority
P&I mutual insurers declined to underwrite Hormuz crossings on 15-16 June while the IRGC's Strait Authority remained in operation, reducing actual transits to two vessels against a pre-war daily rate of 94. The corps' revenue-generating toll mechanism, created 5 May and collecting $1.5-2 million per VLCC in crypto, has not been stood down and cannot be dissolved by Ghalibaf's signature.
Israeli Cabinet
Israeli Cabinet
Netanyahu admitted he had not seen the memorandum's text but confirmed IDF forces would stay in southern Lebanon; Finance Minister Smotrich called for ten Beirut buildings destroyed per Hezbollah drone and National Security Minister Ben-Gvir said the agreement 'does not bind us in any way'. Israel signed nothing in Islamabad and is the central unresolved variable in the Lebanon clause.
Iranian Majlis hardliners
Iranian Majlis hardliners
Around 60 MPs signed a letter demanding Ghalibaf explain the memorandum; Paydari faction MP Sabeti said the deal violates the Supreme Leader's red lines, and MP Aboutorabi argued the document carries binding obligations 'that cannot be resolved by simply changing the name'. President Pezeshkian defended the negotiators against accusations of betrayal, confirming the fracture inside Iran's political class.
US Vice President JD Vance
US Vice President JD Vance
Vance signed on 15 June and said the memorandum was 'not conditioned on Israel withdrawing from Lebanon' while also saying it 'envisioned a ceasefire that covers both Iran and Lebanon'. The two formulations are incompatible and hand Iran's foreign minister a ready-made violation claim before Geneva.