The ongoing U.S.-Iran-Israel war has shifted the focus of global energy markets toward Brent crude oil. Before the escalation, at the close of Feb. 27, Brent crude stood at $72.48. With the increasing threat of conflict, the market opened on Monday, March 2, at $81.57. Fluctuating between a daily low of $75.75 and a high of $82.37, Brent demonstrated that markets were pricing in a geopolitical risk premium gradually rather than through an abrupt spike. Although no dramatic surge was observed in the first few days, as weeks progressed, the impact of uncertainty became more pronounced, and Brent crude prices exceeded $100.
One of the most critical aspects of these developments was the de facto restriction of the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s announcement that only vessels from countries not supporting the United States and Israel would be allowed to pass through the strait. This restriction created significant uncertainty and risk at a strategic chokepoint through which approximately one-fifth of the world’s oil supply flows.
Market actors assessed this development not only as a transit restriction but also as part of a broader geopolitical strategy directly targeting energy supplies. Attacks by the U.S. and Israel on energy fields and critical infrastructure in Iran also gained significance within this framework, revealing that the conflict is increasingly evolving into an energy-centered dimension. This situation indicates that the tension has clearly taken on the characteristics of an energy war with global impact rather than a conventional military conflict.
In response to disruptions in the global oil supply, the U.S. administration granted a waiver on sanctions targeting Russian oil. Under this framework, it was announced that permission had been granted for a limited period to sell Russian oil that was stranded at sea and could not otherwise be sold.
In theory, the waiver granted to Russia was intended to put downward pressure on Brent and other oil prices by signaling additional supply to the market. However, in practice, its impact remained limited and indirect.
The 30-day waiver introduced by the U.S. did not directly or immediately increase the current oil supply, as it applied only to specific tankers under certain conditions. Russian oil was already largely transported via land routes and shadow fleets. The waiver merely facilitated its legal status and did not add new production or capacity to the market.
It should be noted that the shipments covered under the U.S. waiver are limited to the United States’ own sanctions regime. The fact that the European Union did not benefit from this waiver split the market effects in two. As a result, markets did not interpret the lifting of restrictions as a signal of a permanent increase in supply.
In addition, the waiver drew criticism for indirectly benefiting Russian producers, as some buyers were able to access the market more easily, preventing a complete halt in supply flows.
While geopolitical tensions in the Middle East create high volatility in Brent crude markets, statements by U.S. President Donald Trump also play a decisive role in price formation.
On the one hand, Trump made remarks aimed at calming markets, saying, “Do not worry, Brent crude will fall again and return to normal levels.” On the other hand, in the face of risks in the Strait of Hormuz, he called for the formation of a coalition and stated, “We will deploy the United States and its allies to ensure the safety of ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.”
Following these developments, by March 21, countries that had previously responded cautiously and negatively to such calls, together with 22 countries, mostly European, issued a joint statement indicating that they are ready to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage in the Strait of Hormuz.
This situation shows that the earlier hesitant stance has been replaced by a controlled engagement that does not include a direct military commitment but adopts a more active diplomatic position. The statement does not constitute a binding military response to Trump’s call. Instead, it reflects an approach that maintains strategic ambiguity while implying closer coordination in line with rising geopolitical risks and concerns over energy supply security. In this framework, without an official institutional decision within NATO, member states are understood to be adopting a more cautious yet more coordinated stance at the individual level.
A diplomatic approach may provide limited short-term stability in the markets and reduce the risk premium. On the other hand, military intervention or the provision of security guarantees could secure oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz. However, this carries the potential to escalate tensions in the Middle East and increase long-term political risks. Consequently, markets are factoring in both statements from political leaders and possible actions by NATO, which directly affect short-term fluctuations in Brent crude and the associated uncertainty premiums.
Oil markets display an extremely sensitive structure in the face of geopolitical risks. Sanctions on Iran, the Russia‑Ukraine war, and the U.S.-Israel-Iran war represent three critical periods that have had direct and indirect effects on Brent crude prices. In each period, intervention methods by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and other global actors have differed.
In 2018, the U.S. withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement and reimposed sanctions. This move significantly restricted Iran’s oil exports and created uncertainty in global supply. Brent crude prices showed an upward trend, yet the market could still be balanced by increased production from other producers and alternative supply routes.
During this period, the International Energy Agency (IEA) did not release large volumes from strategic reserves. Supply tightness was limited, and there was sufficient capacity to stabilize market prices. Price pressure mainly stemmed from political risk premiums.
The year 2018 stands out as an example demonstrating that geopolitical risk can influence pricing even when reserve interventions are not necessary.
In 2022, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine created a major shock in global oil supply. Since Russian oil accounted for a significant portion of global supply, Brent prices rose sharply in the first weeks of the war.
The IEA carried out a coordinated reserve release to ease price pressure in the market: a total of 182.7 million barrels, consisting of an initial 62.7 million barrels followed by an additional 120 million barrels, were released into strategic stocks. The U.S. and other major producers also provided support through additional sales from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
This intervention did not fully reduce prices, but it restored market confidence and limited volatility to some extent. The year 2022 is recorded as an example where IEA intervention helped stabilize prices alongside geopolitical risks.
In 2026, due to rising and ongoing tensions in the Middle East and disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, the IEA initiated the largest reserve release in its history: a total of 400 million barrels of emergency reserves were brought to the market. This intervention aims to partially balance the bottleneck in the Strait of Hormuz and limit price increases.
The 2026 intervention stands out compared to 2018 and 2022, both in terms of scale and the combination of geopolitical risk with direct logistical disruptions.
Türkiye announced that it released approximately 11.6 million barrels of strategic oil reserves as part of its contribution to the 400 million barrel strategic reserve release. This decision, taken by the National Petroleum Committee under the signature of Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Alparslan Bayraktar, demonstrates Türkiye’s active contribution to the largest reserve release operation coordinated by the IEA.
The decision to release oil from strategic petroleum reserves stands out as an extraordinary intervention for global energy markets. However, the fact that this release will be carried out gradually over a period of 90 days may be considered one of the most critical and notable aspects of the issue.
