Skip to content
Iran Conflict 2026
20APR

Brent holds at $95 as markets wait

2 min read
10:10UTC

Oil prices stayed flat at $95-97, pricing a sustained stalemate rather than confidence in resolution.

← Back to Two unsigned rulebooks collide at HormuzJump to analysis ↓
ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

Brent above $95 reflects a market that expects neither resolution nor collapse.

Brent Crude traded between $95.20 and $96.69 on 11-12 April, essentially flat from the prior update's $96.39 . The post-ceasefire drop to $92 proved temporary; Brent has since recovered and settled into a narrow band above $95.

The flat range tells a story. Markets are not pricing in a clean resolution. They are not pricing in a return to conflict either. They are pricing a structural stalemate: the Hormuz Strait stays mostly closed, supply stays constrained, and nobody knows what happens when the ceasefire expires.

Oxford Economics projects world GDP growth at 1.4% in 2026 if the conflict persists, down from a 2.6% baseline. War risk insurance premiums remain four to five times pre-war levels. Commercial vessels rerouting via the Cape of Good Hope add 10 to 20 days per voyage, and US importer freight rates have risen by up to 50%.

Most equity markets have not yet priced in a sustained conflict scenario, which means the current oil price may be an underestimate of the economic shock if the ceasefire collapses without a replacement framework. Brent peaked sharply higher before the ceasefire was announced; a return to those levels would sharpen the GDP drag considerably.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Brent crude is the global oil price benchmark. It is trading just above $95 per barrel, roughly $20 above where it was before the conflict. The fact it has stayed flat, neither rising sharply nor falling, tells you what the markets think: they expect the stalemate to continue for a while, but they do not expect a catastrophic escalation either. Oxford Economics, one of the most widely-cited economic forecasting institutions, estimates that if this conflict drags on, the world economy will grow by only 1.4% in 2026, down from 2.6% without the conflict. That 1.2-percentage-point reduction does not sound like much, but at the scale of the global economy it represents roughly $1.2 trillion in lost output, roughly the entire GDP of Spain for a year. For ordinary people, the most direct effect is energy costs. Sustained $95+ Brent flows through to petrol, diesel, gas, and electricity prices over weeks to months.

What could happen next?
  • Consequence

    Markets pricing a structural stalemate rather than resolution means Brent will stay elevated regardless of ceasefire expiry, unless Hormuz transit actually resumes at scale, a signal the first oil tanker full transit would provide.

  • Risk

    The Oxford Economics 1.4% global growth scenario is predicated on sustained conflict without re-escalation; a return to active hostilities would trigger a spike above $110, potentially pushing the global economy into recession territory.

Sources:Stimson Center
Mentions:Cape of Good Hope →Strait of Hormuz Toll System →Oxford Economics →Brent Crude →
First Reported In

Update #66 · Islamabad collapses: 10 days to expiry

Stimson Center· 12 Apr 2026
Read original →
Causes and effects
Caused by
Brent crude recovers from post-ceasefire low
Brent at $96.39 (ID:2211) held essentially flat to the $95.20-$96.69 range on 11-12 April, confirming sustained market pricing of the conflict stalemate.
Occurred 11 Apr 2026
Read story →
This Event
Brent holds at $95 as markets wait
Rangebound Brent above $95 means markets have not priced in a clean resolution, and the economic cost of the conflict is accumulating, not receding.
Led to
Oil surges past $103 on blockade
Brent at $95-97 on 11-12 April jumped 8% past $103 as the blockade announcement repriced markets from stalemate to active escalation.
Occurred 13 Apr 2026
Read story →
Different Perspectives
Global South governments (Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa)
Global South governments (Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa)
Neutrality was possible when the targets were military. 148 dead schoolgirls made it impossible — no government can explain that away to its own citizens.
Trump administration
Trump administration
Oscillating between claiming diplomatic progress and threatening escalation, while deploying additional ground forces to the Gulf.
Israeli security establishment
Israeli security establishment
Fears a rapid, vague US-Iran agreement that freezes military operations before the IDF achieves what it considers full strategic objectives. A senior military official assessed the campaign is 'halfway there' and needs several more weeks.
Iraqi government
Iraqi government
Iraq's force majeure is the position of a non-belligerent whose entire petroleum economy has been paralysed by a war between others — storage full, exports blocked, production being cut with no timeline for resumption.
Russia — Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia
Russia — Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia
Moscow calibrated its position between Gulf states and Iran: abstaining on Resolution 2817 rather than vetoing it, signalling it would not block protection for Gulf states, while refusing to endorse a text that ignores the US-Israeli campaign it regards as the conflict's proximate cause. Russia proposed its own ceasefire text — which failed 4-2-9 — allowing Moscow to claim the peacemaker role while providing Iran with satellite targeting intelligence, a duality consistent with its approach in Syria.
France — President Macron
France — President Macron
France absorbed its first combat death in a conflict it has publicly declined to join. The killing of Chief Warrant Officer Frion in Erbil forces Macron to choose between escalating involvement and accepting casualties from the margins.