Blog

Under the Shadow of War, the Global Growth Path Faces Its Sternest Test in Decades

The global economy has been hit by an acute geopolitical energy shock. Since late February 2026, when the United States and Israel launched military strikes against Iran, Tehran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz has severed roughly one-fifth of the world's crude oil and liquefied natural gas supply, stranding more than 200 tankers in the Persian Gulf. Brent crude, which began the year at around $77 a barrel, surged into the $105–$110 range, and the depth of this disruption already dwarfs the energy turbulence triggered by the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022. In its April 14 World Economic Outlook, the IMF was explicit: before this conflict, it had been preparing to upgrade its 2026 global growth forecast to 3.4%. Instead, it has been forced to cut that projection to 3.1%, while raising its global inflation forecast to 4.4%. What makes this crisis structurally dangerous is the convergence of multiple transmission channels. The Strait of Hormuz is not merely the world's oil artery — it is also the transit route for roughly 30% of internationally traded fertilizers, meaning the disruption has cascaded from energy costs into agricultural inputs and industrial feedstocks. European chemical and steel manufacturers have already begun imposing energy surcharges of up to 30%. For emerging markets, the pain is particularly acute: commodity-importing economies face simultaneous currency depreciation and surging import bills, with already-strained fiscal buffers limiting room for policy relief. Market opinion is sharply divided: optimists point to advancing ceasefire negotiations, arguing that a short-lived conflict would allow energy markets to normalize; pessimists counter that even a ceasefire will not quickly resolve the logistical backlog, noting that clearing hundreds of stranded tankers will take weeks, not days. Over the next three to six months, oil price dynamics will serve as the key anchor for global inflation expectations. Under the IMF's base case — a contained, short-lived conflict — central banks will face classic stagflationary pressure, unable to rely cleanly on rate hikes when supply-driven inflation is hammering growth. The IMF's severe scenario, where disruption extends into 2027, puts global growth at around 2%, uncomfortably close to the technical threshold for a global recession — a threshold breached only four times since 1980. For investors, the most underappreciated tail risk is not the conflict's direct destruction, but the possibility that persistently elevated energy costs unanchor inflation expectations, forcing central banks to tighten monetary conditions even as growth deteriorates — a policy trap with no clean exit.

A Fragile Ceasefire Won't Quickly Heal the Hormuz Energy Crisis

The Middle East took a dramatic turn this week, only to plunge back into uncertainty almost immediately. On April 7, the U.S. and Iran announced a two-week temporary ceasefire, with Tehran pledging to reopen the Strait of Hormuz for transit. Oil prices tumbled more than 15% on the news, and global equities staged a broad relief rally. Within days, however, Iran accused Washington of violating the agreement, passage through the strait fell back into dispute, and the market's brief celebration gave way to a wait-and-see stance. The roots of this energy shock trace back to late February, when U.S. and Israeli military strikes on Iran triggered the largest oil supply disruption on record. At the height of the blockade, global crude output losses were estimated at roughly ten million barrels per day, and wholesale oil prices had surged more than 30% from pre-conflict levels. What is driving this crisis goes beyond a short-term geopolitical flare-up — it reflects a deeper strategic contest over the Strait of Hormuz, the chokepoint through which roughly a quarter of the world's seaborne oil must pass. Iran's demand that tankers pay a toll of up to one dollar per barrel, settled in cryptocurrency to sidestep sanctions, makes clear that even under a nominal ceasefire, Tehran intends to retain effective control over the waterway. Goldman Sachs reported that throughput had recovered to only around 10% of normal levels, and the scale of refinery capacity disruption across the region is too large to absorb within a matter of weeks. Kuwait's national oil company was more blunt in its assessment, warning that a full production restart could take three to four months. Looking ahead, the trajectory of this energy crisis turns on two threads: whether the Islamabad talks on April 10 can produce a more durable ceasefire framework, and whether Israeli operations in Lebanon — the flashpoint Iran cited as grounds for potentially exiting the deal — show meaningful signs of restraint. Even if the ceasefire holds, analysts broadly expect a war risk premium to remain embedded in crude prices for months to come, meaning energy inflation is unlikely to recede fully in the near term. For investors, this translates into sustained volatility across energy-linked assets and continued margin pressure on industries exposed to petrochemical supply chains.

Trump's Iran Speech Ignites Oil Price Storm

U.S. President Donald Trump delivered a national address on April 1, 2026, providing an update on the ongoing military operations against Iran. He claimed that U.S. military objectives were nearing completion and warned of an intensified wave of strikes to be launched within the next two to three weeks. Following the address, market sentiment quickly turned anxious, driving global oil prices higher. Brent crude has surged 65% since the conflict began, approaching $120 per barrel — more than 50% above last month's average price. The spike in oil prices has driven up energy costs broadly, with U.S. gasoline prices jumping sharply from $2.30 per gallon last month to $3.60. Financial markets were also rattled, reflecting mounting pressure on global supply chains and energy markets — and posing a direct threat to consumer spending and economic growth. The address also deepened market concerns about a potential Iranian blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, prompting oil tankers to reroute away from the waterway and raising the risk of disruptions to global oil supplies, with cost pressures cascading through to everyday consumer goods. Trump also reiterated his intention to impose 25% tariffs on countries that maintain trade relations with Iran. U.S. tariffs on China currently stand at 47%, and any further addition could push the total above 70% — well above late last year's levels — potentially widening trade frictions. Against this backdrop of intertwining geopolitical tensions and tariff policies, market volatility has intensified considerably. Goldman Sachs has forecast that rising oil prices will stoke inflationary pressure and push unemployment higher, while the gradual depletion of consumer savings is expected to further dampen spending momentum. Looking ahead, if military operations are prolonged in the near term, oil prices are likely to remain elevated, with estimates suggesting a drag on global GDP growth of around 0.15% and an increase in inflation of approximately 0.4%. IMF data also indicates that energy shocks of this nature tend to suppress demand recovery. Over the medium term, if U.S. forces achieve a decisive victory and the strait is reopened, markets could gradually stabilize; however, continued expansion of tariff policies risks triggering retaliatory cycles. The World Economic Forum has cautioned that such developments could constitute a structural shock, with particularly significant implications for manufacturing-oriented and trade-dependent economies.

US-Iran Conflict Escalates Global Economic Pressure

Since the outbreak of the conflict between the United States and Iran in late February 2026, the situation has now entered its fourth week, with Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz severely disrupting global crude oil supply. Brent crude prices briefly surged to USD 114 per barrel on March 22, marking an increase of more than 60% from around USD 70 before the conflict, while West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude hovered near USD 98. The sharp rise in oil prices has begun to feed into inflation data, with the U.S. February CPI recording a slight increase and market expectations pointing to further inflationary pressure in March. Amid soaring energy prices and heightened geopolitical uncertainty, global equity markets have experienced volatility, with Dow Jones futures declining 0.73% and S&P 500 futures falling 0.61%. Higher energy costs are not only weakening consumer purchasing power but also increasing manufacturing expenses, and Taiwan’s energy import costs could rise by more than 20% year-over-year. The key driver of turbulence in the global energy market lies in the Strait of Hormuz. The waterway transports approximately 20 million barrels of crude oil per day, accounting for about one-fifth of global supply; any disruption therefore creates a substantial supply gap. On March 22, U.S. President Donald Trump issued a 48-hour ultimatum demanding Iran reopen the strait, warning that failure to comply would result in strikes on Iranian power plants and energy facilities. Iran, in response, threatened retaliation against U.S. assets in the Middle East, escalating the risk of further confrontation. Recent joint U.S.-Israel airstrikes have reportedly destroyed multiple Iranian missile bases and naval facilities, with missile inventories declining sharply over the past 72 hours. However, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard continues retaliatory actions near Israeli nuclear facilities, increasing the geopolitical risk premium in oil markets. As energy supply instability spreads, several energy-intensive industries have begun to feel the impact. For example, aluminum smelters have shut down approximately 19% of production lines, further disrupting global supply chains. Markets are also concerned that the conflict could expand to Kharg Island, Iran’s key oil export hub, which could push oil prices toward the USD 120 range. In the short term, if the United States delays military action and engages in substantive negotiations, oil prices could retreat below USD 100 per barrel, potentially allowing global equity markets to rebound. However, supply risks remain elevated. In the medium term, if the conflict continues through the end of March, oil prices could surge beyond USD 150, intensifying global inflationary pressure and forcing the Federal Reserve to maintain tighter monetary policy. Taiwan’s export-oriented manufacturing sector would also face rising cost pressures. Market participants should closely monitor signs of internal military shifts within Iran as well as progress in U.S.-Iran negotiations. While energy diversification and strategic reserves may partially mitigate the shock, persistent geopolitical tensions could continue to weigh on global economic growth through the second half of 2026. Investors may increasingly turn to safe-haven assets such as gold and the U.S. dollar while also tracking developments among alternative energy suppliers.

US-Malaysia Trade Deal Declared Void: New Global Trade Dynamics

Malaysia announced on March 15, 2026, that the “U.S.–Malaysia Reciprocal Trade Agreement” (ART) signed with the United States is invalid. This marks the first case following the U.S. Supreme Court’s February ruling that tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were unlawful. The agreement, originally signed at the ASEAN Summit on October 26, 2025, reduced tariffs on Malaysian exports to the U.S. from 25% to 19%, covering approximately 12% of Malaysia’s exports to the U.S., including key industries such as electrical and electronic products, oil and gas, palm oil, and rubber products. This development may have broad implications for the global economy, potentially prompting other countries to follow suit, widening the U.S. trade deficit (total U.S.–Malaysia trade reached USD 24.9 billion in 2024, with Malaysia ranking 14th in U.S. trade deficits), and increasing supply chain instability and stock market volatility. The root cause of this development lies in the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on February 20, which determined that the Trump administration’s unilateral imposition of reciprocal tariffs under IEEPA was unconstitutional, thereby removing the legal foundation of the ART. As a result, Malaysia’s Minister of Investment, Trade and Industry, Tengku Zafrul Aziz, formally declared on March 15 that the agreement “does not exist.” Malaysia’s exports to the U.S. are highly dependent on electronic products (export value reached USD 43.39 billion in 2024, representing a 67% increase compared to 2020). The agreement had previously provided preferential market access; its invalidation raises concerns that the U.S. may initiate Section 301 investigations, potentially impacting major export sectors such as electronics. Furthermore, the Trump administration has warned that countries invoking the court ruling to withdraw from agreements may face retaliatory tariffs, exacerbating trade tensions. Malaysia has opted to exit the agreement to avoid compromising its economic sovereignty and trade surplus (approximately MYR 98.7 billion). Looking ahead, in the short term, U.S.–Malaysia trade may shift toward a general 10% U.S. tariff framework. While this transition could reduce export costs compared to the previous 19% rate, Malaysian exporters will still face uncertainty and must remain cautious of potential targeted tariffs under Section 232 or Section 301, particularly in the electronics and rubber sectors. In the medium term, if more countries declare similar agreements invalid, the global trade landscape may undergo restructuring due to a chain reaction, leading to further supply chain adjustments. The U.S. trade deficit could worsen (Malaysia’s exports to the U.S. totaled USD 3.867 billion in January 2025, down 9% month-over-month from December 2024), potentially fueling inflation and influencing Federal Reserve monetary policy. The Malaysian government is currently assessing cost-benefit implications and seeking ASEAN cooperation to diversify risks. Overall, the market outlook remains volatile, and investors are advised to closely monitor subsequent negotiation developments.