The sharp increase reflects a sustained rise in crude oil prices, driven by the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical oil transit chokepoint through which roughly a fifth of global oil supply typically flows. Tankers stranded in the region have curtailed deliveries, constraining supply and pushing benchmark oil prices higher.

Market analysts say the price trajectory briefly softened in mid-April amid expectations of a potential ceasefire. “There was optimism that this could mark the beginning of the end of the conflict,” said Rob Smith, director of global fuel retail at S&P Global Energy, noting that crude and gasoline prices temporarily declined before reversing course as hostilities persisted.

Crude oil accounts for the largest share of gasoline costs in the United States, representing about 51 percent of pump prices in 2025, according to the US Energy Information Administration. Taxes contribute roughly 17 percent, while refining, distribution, and marketing costs make up the remainder.

The International Energy Agency has described the disruption linked to the Strait of Hormuz as the largest supply shock in oil market history, with prices reaching as high as $112 per barrel in early April. Analysts note that gasoline prices tend to track crude movements closely, with minimal lag.

Additional upward pressure followed US actions in April to block Iranian oil exports, a move analysts say removed a key supply source from global markets. “Iran had been moving an unusually high amount of oil to global markets, which helped moderate prices,” said Jim Krane, an energy research fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute, adding that the restrictions intensified price pressures.

Energy markets have remained highly sensitive to geopolitical developments, with fluctuations tied to reports of attacks in the Arabian Gulf or shifts in diplomatic efforts. “The oil market is exquisitely sensitive to what’s coming out of the White House,” said Bob Kleinberg, a research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.

The pace of price increases has echoed previous geopolitical shocks, including a 48-cent weekly rise at the outset of the Iran conflict. However, analysts caution that no near-term relief is likely, as prolonged constraints in the Strait of Hormuz are expected to sustain upward pressure on prices.

Even in the event of a durable resolution, market participants say a return to pre-war pricing levels could take months due to lingering risk premiums associated with shipping through the region and heightened insurance costs for oil transport.

Financial markets are showing signs of diminishing responsiveness to statements by Donald Trump on the conflict involving Iran, as investors weigh inconsistent signals against ongoing geopolitical and economic risks.

Earlier this week, a social media post by Trump describing talks with Iran as “very good and productive” triggered a broad market reaction. Oil prices dropped more than 10%, global equities rallied, the dollar weakened, bond yields fell and gold prices rose, illustrating the sensitivity of asset classes to perceived diplomatic progress.

However, subsequent remarks by Trump extending a deadline for potential U.S. military action against Iranian energy infrastructure to April 6 produced a more muted response. U.S. equities pared losses only slightly, while crude prices stabilised rather than reversing course.

By early Friday, Brent crude had resumed its upward trajectory, trading above $109 per barrel, and S&P futures were again in negative territory.

Market participants appear increasingly cautious amid conflicting narratives from Washington and Tehran. While Trump said Iran had requested a seven-day reprieve, reports citing mediators indicated no such request had been made. Iranian officials have also rejected a 15-point U.S. proposal aimed at ending the conflict.

At the same time, reports suggest the United States may deploy an additional 10,000 troops to the Gulf region, reinforcing concerns that the conflict could escalate even as diplomatic channels remain open.

This divergence has complicated pricing across asset classes, with investors struggling to assess the likelihood of either a near-term resolution or further escalation.

Since the conflict began on February 28, traditional safe-haven assets have not behaved uniformly. U.S. Treasury securities have weakened, reflecting inflation concerns and expectations of a more hawkish stance from the Federal Reserve, alongside signs of strain in government debt markets following a series of weak auctions.

Gold prices have also softened during the period, contrary to typical crisis-driven demand, prompting some investors to reassess assumptions about its role as a hedge during geopolitical shocks.Concerns are also building in private credit markets.

Firms including Ares Management and Apollo Global Management have restricted investor withdrawals from certain funds after an increase in redemption requests, signalling stress in less liquid segments of the financial system.

Despite volatility, some analysts are turning more constructive on U.S. equities, citing expectations of strong earnings growth. Several major banks have raised forecasts for the S&P 500, suggesting resilience in corporate performance even amid geopolitical uncertainty and concerns around artificial intelligence investment cycles.

In energy markets, the oil futures curve continues to indicate expectations of a relatively swift resolution to supply disruptions, despite estimates that as much as 20 million barrels per day could be affected by the conflict and related infrastructure damage.

The Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy corridor, remains central to market dynamics. Investors appear to be pricing in a reopening of the route, although current conditions reflect ongoing disruption.U.S. gasoline prices are approaching $4 per gallon, indicating that domestic consumers are beginning to feel the impact of higher crude prices despite the country’s substantial energy production capacity.

Public sentiment has also weakened. A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed only 29% approval for Trump’s handling of the U.S. economy, marking the lowest level recorded for him on this measure.

The effects of the conflict are extending beyond crude markets. Natural gas markets may face more severe disruptions due to limited storage capacity, rigid supply chains and infrastructure constraints, particularly in Europe, which remains heavily dependent on gas imports.

This could force policymakers in Europe to reconsider elements of their climate transition strategies in the near term, as energy security concerns take precedence.

In contrast, the crisis may accelerate the adoption of alternative energy technologies in Asia, especially electric vehicles, where supply chains remain more flexible and policy support is strong.Geopolitical scheduling also reflects expectations around the conflict’s trajectory.

Trump has postponed a planned visit to China to meet Xi Jinping until mid-May, signalling an expectation that the situation may stabilise within weeks rather than days.

Markets remain highly sensitive to developments, but recent price action suggests that investors are placing greater emphasis on concrete developments rather than political messaging alone.