The war could continue for many weeks, and oil could reach $150 a barrel.
Across Asian trading floors on Monday, the arithmetic of war made itself visible in falling indices and rising oil prices, as the conflict between the United States and Iran entered its fourth week with no resolution in sight. Thailand's SET, Japan's Nikkei, and South Korea's markets all retreated sharply, not from any failure of commerce or policy, but from the ancient and recurring truth that geopolitical instability extracts its toll from ordinary portfolios and ordinary lives. With the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed and oil surpassing $112 a barrel — up 55 percent in a single month — analysts are reaching back to the oil shocks of the 1970s to find a comparable moment, and finding that even those precedents may fall short. The world is being reminded, again, that energy is not merely a commodity but the circulatory system of civilization.
- Asian markets opened Monday to their worst session in months, with South Korea shedding 5.2% and Japan's Nikkei falling 3.8% as investors priced in a conflict showing no signs of a near-term end.
- Iran threatened to strike Gulf energy and water infrastructure in retaliation for US warnings, while the Strait of Hormuz — through which a significant share of the world's oil flows — remained effectively closed to most vessels.
- Oil's climb is no longer a spike but a sustained surge: Brent crude at $112 a barrel represents a 55% rise in March alone, with futures markets signaling traders expect elevated prices to persist well into the future.
- The crisis has escaped the oil market entirely — jet fuel is up 175%, Asian LNG has surged 130%, shipping costs are soaring, and fertilizer inflation is now threatening to push global food prices higher in the months ahead.
- The head of the International Energy Agency described the situation as more severe than the two 1970s oil shocks combined — a comparison that, if it holds, points toward recession, restructured supply chains, and a fundamental rethinking of energy dependence.
Thailand's stock index shed 1.78 percent in the opening minutes of Monday trading, a modest number that understated the regional alarm: Japan's Nikkei fell 3.8 percent, South Korea's market dropped 5.2 percent, and the broader Asia-Pacific index lost 2.5 percent. The cause was not a corporate earnings surprise or a central bank misstep. It was the fourth week of a Middle Eastern conflict that was beginning to feel permanent.
On Sunday, Iran announced it would target the energy and water infrastructure of Gulf neighbors if the United States followed through on threats to disable Iran's electrical grid. President Trump had given Iran forty-eight hours to fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz — a deadline that had passed without compliance. Israel signaled weeks more of fighting ahead. The market was not pricing in a ceasefire. It was pricing in a long war.
The damage moved through individual stocks — Delta Electronics, Advanced Info Service, Gulf Development, Airports of Thailand — ordinary holdings in ordinary portfolios, marked down because uncertainty had deepened. Oil, the commodity whose passage through the Strait of Hormuz underpins the global economy, climbed again: Brent crude reached $112.62 a barrel, up 55 percent in March alone. September futures held at $92.90, a signal that traders expected no quick relief.
Shane Oliver of AMP warned that oil could reach $150 a barrel, and that the destruction of energy infrastructure meant recovery would be slow even after fighting stopped. He invoked the oil shocks of 1973 and 1979 — crises that unfolded over months and years, reshaped economies, and forced governments to reconsider their dependence on imported energy.
The ripple effects were already visible beyond the oil market. Jet fuel in Singapore had climbed 175 percent since January. Asian liquefied natural gas was up 130 percent. Shipping costs were surging. Fertilizer prices were rising, carrying the threat of more expensive food in the months ahead. Fatih Birol of the International Energy Agency offered the starkest assessment: the current situation, he said, was worse than the two 1970s oil shocks combined. That comparison was still being absorbed by markets that had only just begun to reckon with what it might mean.
The trading floor opened to red numbers across Asia on Monday morning. Thailand's stock index fell 1.78 percent in the first forty minutes, shedding 25.57 points to close at 1,407.42. It was the visible symptom of a wider regional fever: Japan's Nikkei dropped 3.8 percent, South Korea's market shed 5.2 percent, and the broadest measure of Asia-Pacific stocks outside Japan lost 2.5 percent. The culprit was not a surprise earnings miss or a central bank miscalculation. It was the Middle East, where the United States and Iran were trading threats that had begun to feel less like posturing and more like promise.
On Sunday, Iran announced it would target the energy and water infrastructure of its Gulf neighbors if President Trump followed through on a threat to disable Iran's electrical grid within forty-eight hours. Trump, in turn, had warned Iran that it had two days to fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the vital shipping channel that had become effectively impassable for most vessels. The war, now in its fourth week, showed no signs of ending. Israel was preparing for weeks more of fighting. The market was pricing in a conflict that would not resolve quickly.
The damage rippled through individual stocks. Delta Electronics fell 3.35 percent. Advanced Info Service dropped 2.89 percent. Gulf Development, Airports of Thailand, and Cpall all moved lower. These were not speculative positions or leveraged bets—they were the ordinary holdings of ordinary portfolios, and they were being marked down because the world had become more uncertain.
Oil, the commodity that moves through the Strait of Hormuz and powers the global economy, lurched upward again. Brent crude was up 0.4 percent to $112.62 a barrel, having climbed 55 percent already in March. US crude gained 0.8 percent to $98.98. The volatility was relentless. The United States had allowed Iranian and Russian oil to be sold from tankers, which had steadied near-term supplies, but the market was already pricing in longer-term scarcity. September Brent futures—oil to be delivered months away—were up to $92.90, suggesting that traders expected high prices to persist.
Shane Oliver, head of investment strategy at AMP, offered a sobering assessment. The war could continue for many weeks, he said, and oil could reach $150 a barrel. The steady destruction of energy infrastructure meant that even when fighting stopped, the recovery would be slow. He drew a parallel to history: the oil shock of 1973 had unfolded over four months as prices climbed. The shock of 1979 had taken a year. This one, he suggested, might follow a similar arc.
The damage was already spreading beyond the oil market. Jet fuel in Singapore had climbed 175 percent since the start of the year, reaching levels not seen in decades. Asian liquefied natural gas had surged 130 percent. Bunker fuel, used to power cargo ships, had blown out, raising the cost of moving goods across the world. Fertilizer prices were climbing, which meant food would become more expensive in the months ahead. The crisis was no longer confined to energy traders and geopolitical analysts. It was moving into the supply chains that fed people and moved commerce.
Fatih Birol, the head of the International Energy Agency, called the situation "very severe." He went further: it was worse than the two oil shocks of the 1970s combined. That comparison carried weight. Those shocks had reshaped the global economy, triggered recessions, and forced governments to rethink their relationship with energy. This one was still unfolding, and the market was only beginning to price in what it might mean.
Citações Notáveis
The war could still go on for many weeks yet and see oil prices rise to $150 a barrel, and the steady destruction of energy infrastructure means it will take longer to get supply back to normal.— Shane Oliver, head of investment strategy at AMP
The crisis was very severe and worse than the two oil shocks of the 1970s put together.— Fatih Birol, International Energy Agency
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did Thai stocks fall so sharply when the conflict is happening thousands of miles away?
Because oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, and Thailand imports nearly all of its energy. When that strait closes, everything gets more expensive—fuel, electricity, the cost of moving goods. The market was pricing in months of disruption, not days.
The numbers seem almost abstract. What does a 1.78 percent drop actually mean for people?
It means pension funds lost value. It means companies that were planning to hire might pause. It means the cost of borrowing money goes up slightly. It's not a collapse, but it's a signal that the economy is about to feel tighter.
You mentioned jet fuel up 175 percent. Is that real?
Yes. Singapore jet fuel is at multi-decade highs. Airlines will pass that cost to passengers. Shipping costs are surging too. The fertilizer spike means farmers pay more, which means grocery prices rise. It's a cascade.
The analyst mentioned $150 oil. Is that likely?
He said it's possible if the war continues for weeks. The 1970s shocks took months to fully play out. We're only in week four. The market is betting on a long conflict, not a quick resolution.
What's the worst-case scenario here?
Prolonged supply disruption, sustained inflation, slower growth across Asia, and a global recession if it lasts long enough. The IEA chief said this is worse than the 1970s shocks. That's not hyperbole—that's a warning.