Skip to content
Welcome, thoughtbot's Giant Robots listeners!Start here
Iran Conflict 2026
23JUL

Brent jumps 7%, rial hits record low

2 min read
19:27UTC

Brent crude spiked almost 7% intraday to $97.47 on 1 June after Iran suspended talks, settling at $94.98; the rial hit a record 1,746,000 to the dollar as Lloyd's held its Hormuz war-risk line.

ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

Oil and the rial both moved on Iran's walkout, yet Lloyd's kept Hormuz war-risk locked.

Brent Crude, the global oil benchmark, spiked almost 7% intraday to $97.47 on Monday 1 June once Iran suspended talks, its highest since the $98.83 Bandar Abbas bounce on 26 May, yet it settled lower at $94.98, up 4.2% on the day, as the Lebanon ceasefire pared the gain⁠1. The jump came on a formal Iranian diplomatic act, not a missile, so the risk premium now tracks the negotiating table rather than the battlefield. A 7% move translates to roughly 12 to 15p a litre for UK drivers within a fortnight.

The Iranian rial hit a record 1,746,000 to the dollar on Iran's open market by 2 June, from 1,705,000 on 31 May, a 2.4% depreciation in two days that accelerated after the suspension⁠2. Imported food, medicine and fuel cost more in rial overnight, and for Iranians on fixed wages savings erode in days. The same Iranian act split the two markets: Brent rallied while the rial fell, because traders read deal-breakdown risk where ordinary Iranians read a worsening economy.

Lloyd's of London kept its Hormuz war-risk designation unchanged, holding the two-market split that has run since the conflict began. Lloyd's Joint War Committee can de-list the strait of Hormuz only on a UN Security Council resolution or a government certification letter, a structural trigger no sentiment can shift; futures, by contrast, price the odds of a press release. So crude can rally on a thaw while marine insurance stays frozen, because the two answer to different triggers.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Two different markets were tracking the same conflict on 1 June and reached opposite conclusions. The oil futures market, where traders bet on the price of crude oil, drove Brent Crude up by nearly 7% when Iran suspended talks, then back down when the Lebanon ceasefire was announced, ending the day 4.2% higher. Oil futures respond to headlines within minutes because traders can buy or sell in seconds. Lloyd's of London, founded in London in 1688, runs the specialist market that insures ships against war damage. It left its high-cost 'war-risk' designation on the strait of Hormuz unchanged, as it has throughout the conflict. Lloyd's cannot de-list Hormuz just because a ceasefire looks possible; it needs a formal UN Security Council resolution or a government certification letter. None has arrived. The result is that oil traders think the risk is easing while the insurers who cover the actual ships think nothing has changed. The Iranian rial (Iran's currency) fell to a record low of 1,746,000 per dollar on Iran's open market by 2 June. That means ordinary Iranians buying imported food, medicine or electronics face rapidly rising prices, regardless of what diplomats are negotiating.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

The Lloyd's/futures split has a specific institutional cause: Lloyd's Joint War Committee operates on the basis of 'listed areas' that require a formal government certification process to de-list. That process requires either a UN Security Council resolution certifying the end of hostilities, or a letter from a government with jurisdiction over the area.

Neither the US government, which runs the blockade, nor Iran, which controls the strait, has issued such a letter. With Russia and China vetoing any UNSC resolution, the bureaucratic unlock is structurally blocked for the duration of the conflict. This is not risk-model inertia; it is a deliberate institutional design that was built after the 1988 Tanker War specifically to prevent Lloyd's from being repriced by political headlines rather than verified security conditions.

First Reported In

Update #115 · Iran moves first, Trump moves by phone

CBS News· 2 Jun 2026
Read original →
Different Perspectives
Wang Yi
Wang Yi
China's foreign minister and Djibouti's issued a joint communique on 21 October saying the war should not reach the Horn of Africa and stressing free navigation through Bab al-Mandeb. The text names neither Iran nor the Houthis, and Djibouti hosts China's only overseas military base, opposite the Yemeni coast.
Ministry of External Affairs
Ministry of External Affairs
India's foreign ministry called the attacks on Saudi civilian and energy sites "unacceptable" on 22 October and said they must stop at once. An Indian died at Dammam, Indians were injured there and at Shaybah, and about 4,000 Umrah pilgrims remain stranded by one MP's count.
Iraq
Iraq
Iraq closed the al-Sheeb crossing with Iran to travellers and trucks from 21 October and said other crossings would close gradually. Unlike September's closure, which ended on a staged timetable, this one has none, and Iran's interior ministry said it received no notice.
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi
Egypt's president said on 21 October that Cairo's support would "defend Saudi territory, and does not include an attack on Yemen". Araghchi warned that Egyptian involvement would further complicate the situation, and Cairo's limit matches the one Ankara set on 8 October against attacking another state's soil.
UK Ministry of Defence
UK Ministry of Defence
The MoD said on 20 October that RAF Typhoons over Saudi Arabia will not strike the Houthis, but extended tanker support to Saudi operations including against Houthi targets in Yemen. The tanker line sets no limit on strikes, so British aircraft may now refuel Saudi jets on bombing runs.
Turkey
Turkey
Ankara sent the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement to parliament around 20 October, and its published text treats an attack on one party as an attack on all. Article 16 brings it into force only on the last ratification, so the 5 October invocation in Riyadh could not yet bind Turkey.

Written with AI from Lowdown's published reporting. Not individually reviewed by an editor. Editorial standards.