The United States and Iran stop attacking each other

On 28 June 2026 the United States and Iran agreed to end the exchange of attacks. In the following days Brent fell to around $72 a barrel, below its pre-war level. The market read the agreement as a sign that the risk of new route closures was falling markedly.

After four months of tension, the news was received as a relief. But a low price is not the same as a resolved situation, and it is worth distinguishing between what the market has already priced in and what still depends on the agreement holding. Anyone taking decisions on energy, transport or investment would do well to separate enthusiasm from calculation, and urgency from prudence. A good starting point is to ask which decisions make sense at the current price and which only seem to because the headline is favourable.

End of the exchange of attacks

The agreement to stop attacking each other went beyond the memorandum signed days earlier: it bore directly on the safety of routes and installations. For markets, it reduced the risk of incidents that could block traffic through the Gulf again. A memorandum expresses a political will; a commitment to cease attacks touches what happens on the ground and at sea. Insurance, freight rates and routes depend far more on how safe navigation looks than on declarations of intent.

That difference matters to those who depend on maritime transport. Shipowners, insurers and shippers decide on the basis of perceived risk, and an environment with fewer threats allows routes to reopen, premiums to fall and more predictable delivery times to return. It is not an automatic or immediate improvement, but it goes in the direction trade most needed. A supply chain works better the less time it spends trying to foresee the unforeseeable.

Oil below its wartime level

That Brent fell to around $72, below its pre-war level, showed that the market had priced in the end of the conflict with great conviction. A price like that is good news for those who consume energy, but it depends on calm being maintained. If conditions change, the move can reverse as quickly as it came.

For families, cheaper oil translates, with some delay, into more affordable fuel and utilities. For companies where energy weighs heavily in costs, it brings relief to the profit and loss account. But one day’s price should not be taken as the new normal: markets that fall quickly can also rise again, and a prudent budget does not bet on a single level. The experience of that year shows that energy prices can change direction within days.

Using the window

The market celebrated the calm, but the peace was fragile. Companies that used those weeks to close energy contracts at a good price protected themselves against what came afterwards. It is a good example of how favourable windows must be used with judgement, and not merely watched.

Using them with judgement means, for example, fixing the price of part of consumption and leaving the rest open, staggering contracts so as not to depend on a single date and reviewing price-revision clauses with customers and suppliers. The aim is to gain security without giving up altogether the chance of benefiting from a further fall, and to do so with a criterion defined in advance, not with the headline of the day. And in any case to keep a liquidity cushion that allows holding out if prices rise again.

Windows of calm rarely announce when they will close.

This article is general information. It is not legal, tax or investment advice, and it does not take anyone’s particular circumstances into account.