On April 5, 2026, indirect ceasefire negotiations between the United States and Iran over the security of the Strait of Hormuz reached an impasse after multiple rounds of contact, and tensions in the passage sharply escalated. The negotiations were led by U.S. Vice President Vance and Iranian Speaker Ghalibaf, mediated by the Pakistani military, advancing through a multi-point negotiation framework, but they were unable to reach a consensus on opening the strait and the conditions for a ceasefire. At the same time, the International Energy Agency warned that the current conflict had affected 72 key energy assets, one-third of which were severely damaged, and anticipated that April crude oil and refined product losses would reach double that of March. In the confrontation between "quickly restoring shipping safety in Hormuz" and "exchanging for broader, even near-permanent cease-fire," any mishap in Hormuz, a global energy chokepoint, is exponentially amplified into a systemic risk for the entire supply chain.
Negotiations Stalled: Opening the Strait...
The current ceasefire negotiation framework was formed against the backdrop of both the United States and Iran being unwilling to escalate to full-scale war while trying to extract maximum leverage. On April 5, U.S. time zone UTC+8, the U.S. side was represented by Vice President Vance, while the Iranian side was led by Speaker Ghalibaf in releasing political signals. They did not sit at the same table but built an indirect negotiation mechanism characterized by "topic-specific, multi-point communication" through the facilitation of the Pakistani military. This multi-point negotiation framework focuses on the safety of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz while embedding broader ceasefire arrangements and expectations for easing sanctions.
On the core differences, the U.S. side's demands are relatively concentrated: prioritizing the restoration of shipping safety in the Strait of Hormuz, ensuring that tankers and refined product transport quickly return to an operable state in a manageable military environment, while attempting to "disconnect" the ceasefire duration from passage security to maintain flexibility for future military and sanction tools. In contrast, Iran insists on linking the opening of the strait to broader and more enduring ceasefire conditions, including substantive easing of sanctions, tacit acknowledgment of its regional influence, and setting higher thresholds for subsequent military actions.
This has caused the negotiations to progress procedurally while substantively stalling. Media outlets such as AXIOS quoted participants stating that "no substantial progress has been made in the negotiations," implying that while both sides can continue to modify the order of terms at a technical level, discuss details of monitoring mechanisms, there are no signs of concession on the fundamental logic of "opening the strait first or locking down the ceasefire's duration and scope first." Given that any unilateral concession would be seen as a "defeat" by domestic politics and regional allies, the likelihood of the negotiations moving from stalemate to breakthrough in the short term is extremely low, resembling more of a war of attrition aimed at buying time and fighting for the high ground in public opinion.
72 Energy Assets Affected: Warfare...
If the Strait of Hormuz is the throat through which global energy flows, then the region's oil fields, refineries, storage tanks, ports, and pipelines are the capillaries maintaining the "blood circulation." Monitoring data from the International Energy Agency shows that 72 key energy assets have already been struck in this round of conflict, with approximately one-third assessed as "severely damaged". These assets are distributed across multiple links in upstream production, midstream transportation and storage, and downstream refining and loading, exhibiting a "multi-point rupture in the chain" characteristic rather than isolated failures in any one single link.
The severely damaged one-third is mainly concentrated in storage and transport facilities and docks near the coastline and major shipping routes. Once these facilities are incapacitated, they adversely affect not only the immediate shipment volumes but also the turnover efficiency of the surrounding oil tanks and the shipping rhythm of the coming weeks. The remaining affected assets include some oil well stations, regional pipeline nodes, and refining units, which, even if still operational, are generally in reduced load or intermittent shutdown states. The International Energy Agency is continuously monitoring the status of these points while modeling production and capacity losses, thus giving a warning range for "April crude oil and refined product losses may be double that of March".
From a chain perspective, the transmission pathway of facility damage is very direct: once upstream production is forced to reduce output or temporarily shut down, the number of crude oil barrels available for loading at corresponding ports immediately shrinks. Coupled with the risk in shipping lanes, this increases the asking price for ship owners, doubly compressing overall effective export capacity. Damage to midstream pipelines and storage tanks limits the ability to hedge impacts through "increasing inventory, lengthening turnover," making regional allocations more rigid. Ultimately, at the downstream refining and product shipment end, these constraints combine into a quantifiable supply gap.
It is in this context that "losses in April may be double that of March" is not just an abstract warning but a systematic shock to inventories, spot premiums, and the structure of forward curves. In the short term, major consuming regions, in order to hedge against potential supply disruptions, will tend to raise commercial inventory targets, pushing spot demand forward. This "barrel grabbing" behavior will elevate spot premiums and reflect in the futures structure as a more pronounced near-month tightness. In the medium term, if damaged facilities are slow to repair and the conflict persists at a low intensity, the inventory cycle may likely shift from "passive destocking" to "forced high inventory buildup," increasing the price sensitivity to any additional disturbances.
Hormuz Choked: Global Supply...
On the global energy map, the Strait of Hormuz is widely regarded as one of the most critical chokepoints for the flow of oil and refined products. Even without disclosing specific flow data, it can be inferred that the export routes of most Gulf oil-producing nations inevitably pass through this narrow channel. Once shipping risks are repriced, factors such as insurance costs, vessel availability, and expected routing times will all amplify costs, thereby transmitting the effects to global terminal oil prices and fuel prices.
Adding pressure is the fact that the so-called "alternative routes" themselves are also shrouded by the shadows of conflict. With the risks in Hormuz skyrocketing, some exporting countries have been compelled to consider using longer and more convoluted maritime routes or seeking cross-border pipeline transport as alternatives. However, these routes also face geopolitical, infrastructural capacity, and safety challenges. The research brief notes that there are "concerns in the market that alternative routes are threatened"; despite the claim that “Iran systematically destroys crude oil alternative routes” coming from a single source and waiting for verification, the market will still price the risks of this potential scenario, making dependency on Hormuz appear even more "backed into a corner."
Reports regarding Saudi Arabia rerouting crude oil exports through the Red Sea pipeline are also tagged as "information to be verified." If this reroute is indeed factual, its significance lies in providing a "possible alternative route" that bypasses Hormuz for some Gulf crude oil, marginally alleviating the over-dependence on this chokepoint. Even if the available capacity of this route is limited, it helps to establish a mental expectation—that the global supply chain is not entirely a single point of failure—thereby somewhat suppressing extreme panic. However, in reality, as long as the situation in Hormuz remains without a binding security commitment, the market will continue to view it as the most vulnerable source of risk for global supply.
The Incentive to Stockpile Oil is Fermenting: From Tankers to...
In the context of simultaneous reports of geopolitical risks and facility damage data, market sentiment has quickly shifted towards "stockpiling oil". The Director of the International Energy Agency, Birol, publicly urged that "countries must restrain the impulse to hoard oil and fuels,” which itself corroborates the fact that stockpiling impulses have become apparent among decision-makers and market participants. For countries highly dependent on imports, under the dual backdrop of "uncertainty in Hormuz + doubled facility damage," raising strategic and commercial inventory ceilings has almost become an instinctive reaction.
This behavior manifests on a micro level as: sovereign nations may lock in more arrival schedules and long-term oil purchase contracts prematurely, ensuring that even if shipping routes fluctuate and loading is delayed, domestic available inventory remains above a safe threshold; large refineries may expand their in-transit inventories and port tank turnovers, opting to bear higher capital occupancy costs to avoid a "starvation" scenario where facilities are forced to reduce loads; traders in this environment are more motivated to engage in "floating storage"—renting tankers as offshore warehouses, delaying delivery of goods locked in at low prices, waiting for further price increases to strengthen spot tightness expectations.
Once this abnormally excessive stockpiling behavior occurs synchronously from nations to enterprises, the tension on the spot side will become self-amplifying. Demand will be pulled forward in time, while supply will be restricted by passages and facilities, making prices more prone to significant volatility in the short term. Transmitted to the end level, transportation and fuel costs are particularly sensitive: facing higher jet fuel prices, airlines either raise ticket prices or compress other costs, ultimately increasing the pricing center of air travel; container and bulk shipping, under pressure from both fuel and detour time costs, are forced to adjust their pricing systems, thereby raising the overall cost baseline for cross-border trade.
On a macro level, this rise in fuel prices and upwards pressure on freight rates will reshape inflation expectation trajectories. Even if central banks may be willing to "penetrate" short-term energy shocks, if tensions in Hormuz and facility damages persist for months, the second-round effects of energy prices will begin to emerge in food, manufacturing, and service industry prices, making the balance of monetary policy between "stabilizing growth" and "controlling inflation" more fragile, while market repricing of interest rate paths will, in turn, affect the financial attributes of commodities.
Escalating Multi-Party Games: Washington, Berlin...
In this game surrounding Hormuz, Washington's strategy is particularly apparent. On the one hand, as a key global energy consumer and financial pricing center, the U.S. needs to ensure shipping safety in the Gulf region to prevent oil prices from spiraling out of control due to geopolitical premiums, potentially dragging down the domestic economy and electoral politics; on the other hand, overly aggressive military actions against Iran could trigger a comprehensive regional escalation, transforming Hormuz from a "high-risk channel" into a "local battlefield," resulting in a complete loss of control over the situation. Domestic political pressures require the government to be both "tough externally" and "price-stable internally," and this structural contradiction compels Washington to finely calibrate every public statement.
Iran is intentionally magnifying the negotiation value of the Hormuz chokepoint. Under long-term sanctions and internal demand pressures, Tehran needs to showcase "the capacity to influence global energy supply" to gain a more favorable negotiating position. The core of this strategy is to use limited military or grey area actions, without crossing the red line of full-scale war, to continuously convey the irreplaceability of Hormuz in the market, thereby pressuring the U.S. and its allies to make substantive concessions on sanctions and security arrangements. At the same time, Iran must also weigh the consequences: excessive pressure on shipping may backfire on its export revenues, increasing the domestic economic burden, making its behavioral pattern more akin to "rhythmic high-risk pressure" rather than a reckless complete blockade.
Outside the main actors, regional powers like Turkey, Pakistan, and Egypt are playing the dual roles of mediators and participants in ensuring passage security. The Pakistani military has taken on a key mediation role in this round of indirect negotiations, attempting to find a formulatable language acceptable to both Washington and Tehran; Turkey and Egypt, on the other hand, focus more on the security and narrative power of alternative routes through the Red Sea and eastern Mediterranean, drawing from their regional influence. For these countries, acting as a "safety valve" and "intermediaries" not only enhances their leverage in regional order but also provides opportunities for economic benefits from potential alternative route development and security cooperation, making them carefully maneuver their geopolitical and energy interests while advocating for de-escalation in public.
From Warfare to Oil Price Curves: Crisis...
From a scenario perspective, the evolution over the next few months can roughly unfold along two main lines: first, a rapid technical ceasefire, where under the mediation of parties like Pakistan, the U.S. and Iran reach a "minimum consensus" on shipping safety in the Strait of Hormuz and a temporally limited ceasefire, complemented by more precise monitoring and communication mechanisms, causing the risk premium for the Strait to decline in the short term and controlling the degree of disruption to oil and gas supplies; second, long-term low-intensity conflict coexistence, where the U.S. and Iran maintain negotiation postures publicly while continuing to test boundaries in grey area activities, with damage to facilities and threats to passages intermittently resurfacing, keeping the market in a state of high alert.
In the first scenario, energy prices may experience a pullback after reaching a previous high, with spot and forward price structures gradually moving back toward a more balanced state, and the inventory cycle transitioning from "passive destocking + excessive stockpiling" to a more orderly replenishment phase. Policy reactions from major importing countries will likely be relatively moderate, preferring to smooth domestic prices through the release of part of their strategic reserves, optimizing tariff and subsidy structures, and avoiding drastic adjustments to monetary policy paths.
In the second scenario, the risk premium related to Hormuz will be more sticky, with prices highly sensitive to any new disturbances, and the futures curve may fluctuate drastically between "short-term tight expectations" and "medium to long-term demand uncertainty." The inventory cycle may present characteristics of "high oscillation + regional differentiation": some countries and enterprises capable of stockpiling maintain high inventory defenses, while participants with poorer financing and storage conditions are forced to frequently restock in a high-price environment. Corresponding policy reactions would lean toward caution, with big importers facing more challenging trade-offs between energy security and inflation control.
Whichever path dominates, this round of crisis has already exposed the structural issues of excessive concentration in global supply chains and insufficient redundancy in infrastructure security. The highly monopolistic position of Hormuz as a single chokepoint means that any geopolitical spark could be amplified on oil price curves and financial markets. In the foreseeable future, how to weaken single-point failure risks through multi-channel layouts, enhance the resilience of along-the-line facilities, and promote regional reserve coordination will become a long-term topic faced by energy-importing countries and multinational companies together. For market participants, this is not just a round of price fluctuations, but also a practical lesson on the "geopolitical-energy-financial" linked chain.
Join our community to discuss together and become stronger!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
