As of 10:08 a.m., Brent crude futures traded near $79.24 per barrel, up about 2.36 percent. February WTI futures climbed around 2.32 percent to $73.69 per barrel, according to ICE data. By 12:49 p.m., Brent hovered around $79.33 and WTI around $73.92.”
Bloomberg reported that oil prices rose on concerns about possible transportation disruptions and the potential for the conflict to widen into a broader regional flare-up. Geopolitical risks in oil markets are increasing as Houthi forces pledged to continue their attacks on shipping. UBS analyst Giovanni Staunovo attributed the price gains to perceptions of escalating conflict in the region.
Pros for Russia
Igor Yushkov, a senior analyst at the National Energy Security Fund, expects tensions in the Middle East to keep rising. He notes that more foreign tankers may sail near Africa, raising logistics costs including tanker rental, costs that feed into oil prices. He adds that Russian oil mainly travels from West to East, often via Yemen, and can also reach India through the Suez Canal. Moscow already has some arrangements with Tehran and may seek further coordination to protect Russian ships from disruption.
According to Yushkov, Russian vessels are likely to maintain current routes until a last-minute adjustment becomes unavoidable, rather than re-routing proactively. He suggests Russia could adjust routes only if the situation deteriorates sharply, arguing that what matters is the shadow fleet that carries oil and the political guarantees that help sustain safety at sea.
He explains that oil from Middle Eastern producers such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, along with refined products produced from Russian oil bound for India, travels by sea in the opposite direction. He concedes that those routes may face changes as countries adapt to new costs, but notes that Russia would benefit if others bear the expense of re-routing while its own shipments stay on course.
The central risk, in his view, is the deepening conflict in the Middle East, including Iran, which could spark wider supply disruptions. He recalls a January incident where Iranian naval forces seized an American oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman and warns that involvement by Tehran could obstruct the return flow of oil, intensifying an energy crisis and pushing prices higher.
Skryl, a scholar at GV Plekhanov University of Economics, compares a closure of the Hormuz Strait to a gas supply shock similar to the Nord Stream disruption. She notes that roughly seven-tenths of the oil passing through Hormuz heads to Asia, so any closure would push fuel costs higher amid tightening global supply chains.
Could oil reach $100?
In a baseline view, Sovcombank’s chief analyst, Mikhail Vasiliev, does not anticipate a U.S.–Iran war that disrupts global supply chains. He points to upcoming U.S. elections and the Biden administration’s goal of keeping oil and gasoline prices in check, forecasting Brent to stay in roughly the $73–$83 range over the coming months. His projections for the year place Brent around $79 per barrel on average. Staunovo has suggested Brent could top $80 in the near term, a view echoed by Charu Chanana of Saxo Capital Markets.
Evgeniy Mironyuk of BCS World of Investments notes that supply disruptions are possible, but the market reaction remains muted for now. He does not expect Brent to slide back into the $90–$100 band unless significant shocks unfold. In a worst-case scenario, derivatives markets could suffer more, while energy prices might rise substantially. He also mentions that a slower, less drastic path of conflict could lead to a gradual price rise of at least $10 per barrel due to tighter supply and negative market sentiment, a view shared by GV Plekhanova researchers.