Iran War update: Deal or no deal?

With contributions from Noha Fazili, research analyst

Please note: All comments, information and data are as of end of day, Friday, June 19, 2026 (shortly after the MoU was announced).

The U.S. and Iranian negotiators had been working for weeks to end the Iran war, while extending an already tenuous ceasefire. So, markets breathed a sigh of relief on June 14, when, after 15 weeks of conflict, the U.S. and Iran reached an interim peace agreement. Both sides were expected to formally sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in Switzerland on June 19. The core terms of the MoU include:

• Peace (cessation of all hostilities): An end to all military engagement from all sides.
• Reopening of the Strait of Hormuz: A full reopening of the Strait and unrestricted shipping traffic in all directions. Traffic should flow freely and normalize within 30 days , unencumbered by the imposition of tolls. In the wake of the attacks by the U.S. and Israel in late February, Iran effectively shut the Strait on March 2. This resulted in a 70 percent reduction in traffic through the chokepoint , while ship insurance rates skyrocketed . According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), roughly 20 million barrels per day of crude oil and oil products flow through this waterway, representing about 25 percent of the world’s seaborne oil trade and 20 percent of global liquified natural gas (LNG).
• Nuclear nonproliferation: Iran has agreed not to procure or develop nuclear weapons, and the U.S. and Iran have initiated a 60-day window for negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear stockpile.
• Oil supply waiver: This would allow Iran to sell its oil and other byproducts for the duration of the 60-day ceasefire period.
• Relief on sanctions: In exchange for the nuclear freeze, the U.S. is expected to unfreeze US$25 billion in Iranian assets. This also includes allowing Iran to export crude oil and petrochemicals.

Daily vessel crossings in the Strait of Hormuz

The current MoU addresses only a subset of the Trump administration’s core demands (featured in the US-Israeli 15-point peace plan delivered to Tehran in March), with the two points below remaining unaddressed. Little insight has emerged on how or when the following demands will be incorporated into negotiations:

• Termination and dismantling of Iran’s regional proxy networks : These include Hezbollah, which confer considerable regional leverage upon Iran. The U.S. has demanded the permanent cessation of Iranian funding, weapons and support for such military proxy networks.
• Missile and defence limits: The U.S. and Israel are seeking to impose limits on the quantity and range of Iran’s ballistic missiles, restricting future use strictly to self-defence.

For its part, Iran had been demanding:

• The immediate release of $24 billion in its frozen overseas assets (with $12 billion upfront)
• Reparations for wartime damages
• Formal recognition of its control (in partnership with Oman) over the Strait of Hormuz
• Full, unrestricted access to nuclear facilities as preconditions to a lasting deal to end the war

The MoU addresses the asset release—with the U.S. expected to unfreeze up to $24 billion, though the sequencing remains a live point of contention. Tehran insists that funds flow ahead of the MoU signing, while Washington is pushing for performance-based disbursement, as per RBC Capital Markets. Both demands, however, are either unresolved or actively contested as of the time of writing.

According to a recent report , the signing of the MoU provides a 30-day window for the Strait’s reopening under Iranian arrangements, and a separate 60-day period running until mid-August for nuclear talks. To put a finer point on things, the MoU is not a finalized treaty—a breakdown and even a return to direct military conflict remains possible, as it does at any point along the path in what looks set to be a series of aggressive bargains on all sides.

There are several issues that risk derailing a fully implemented and enforceable resolution. Israel has been deeply critical of the terms of the MoU, especially as it relates to its direct (and ongoing) confrontation with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran asserts it is to retain operational control of the Strait alongside authority to charge a “maritime service fee” following the initial 60-day toll-free window. This is a position the White House formally rejects, but one that in its present state could meaningfully impede full normalization of shipping flows. Other near-term risks include differing interpretations of the deal’s terms, growing domestic opposition on both sides of the aisle and the complexity of nuclear talks still ahead.

Energy markets price in war-premium reduction, but not a return to “normal”

Oil markets have sharply adjusted in the wake of the announcement of the MoU. Brent crude has fallen more than 30 percent from its late-April peak since the agreement was announced, as markets price in a potential easing of geopolitical tensions, a reduction in the war premium and a slow resumption of shipments through the Strait of Hormuz.

Yet energy markets continue to suggest that the path back to “normal” is not yet complete. Brent crude has now retraced the bulk of its wartime premium and sits roughly seven percent higher than where they sat at the onset of the conflict in late February —a marked shift from the double-digit premium seen just weeks ago. This compression largely reflects market pricing in expectation of normalized supply flows through the Strait, rather than confirmation that supply has actually normalized. The physical resumption of shipping, insurance repricing and inventory rebuilding will likely take longer than sentiment has taken to adjust, meaning prices could still drift in either direction as the gap between expectations and on-the-ground reality narrows. The ongoing friction and physical hurdles to clearing the maritime chokepoint ensure an “optimism discount,” rather than a true return to fundamental normalcy that will likely dictate daily moves going forward.  

In its June Oil Market Report, the International Energy Agency (IEA) says it expects global oil demand to fall by 1.1 million barrels per day (MM bpd)—a downgrade of 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) from its prior forecast. As high energy prices and limited availability due to the conflict weighed on consumers and refiners, the IEA said oil deliveries fell five MM bpd during the second quarter.

On the supply side, the IEA dropped its forecast by 3.9MM bpd year-over-year in 2026 to 102.4MM bpd. Oil inventories are already at their lowest point in eight years as the cessation of oil shipments from the Middle East over the last four months resulted in the loss of one billion barrels of oil , according to analytics firm Kpler. The IEA’s strategic petroleum reserves are at their lowest levels since 1990, while the American emergency reserve is at a 43-year low as the release of emergency stocks has accelerated.

Yet for 2027, the IEA seems to be forecasting a transition from a supply shock to a supply glut. The agency is pencilling in supply (expected to surge eight million barrels per day to 110MM bpd) to outpace the recovery in global oil demand (of two million barrels per day to 105MM bpd). The IEA opines that such a respite may be welcome to the market, providing an opportunity for countries to replenish depleted inventories, build new strategic reserves and reassess and fortify their policies around national energy security.

Still, the focus this year will remain on the unwinding of the glut and the normalization of shipping traffic. The Strait’s operational reopening will be a gradual process and an exercise in logistical dexterity—after 100-plus days of ships sitting on the water in the Gulf. Reports suggest it will take months to approach anything close to prewar traffic levels , particularly if the security environment remains unsettled.

Crude calculations and betting on barrels

On a lighter note, if betting markets are reliable to any degree (a big if), there may yet be grounds for renewed optimism. As recently as early June, betting markets were decidedly pessimistic on the probability of a near-term resolution of the Iran War and subsequent reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Polymarket traders saw a less than 30 percent chance of a permanent U.S.-Iran deal by the end of June—down from 75 percent in late May. Furthermore, the platform suggested a roughly 20 percent probability that shipping through the Strait would normalize over the same timeline, down from close to 60 percent the previous month . A mere few weeks later, and with the announcement of the MoU, prediction markets have turned rather optimistic about the odds of a normalization of traffic through the chokepoint that connects the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman.

Prediction markets suggest Strait of Hormuz traffic will return to normal over the summer

Meanwhile, equity markets have continued to push higher on a year-to-date basis, particularly in the U.S. To be fair, U.S. equity markets corrected roughly eight percent since the onset of the U.S. and Israeli strike, only to bottom on March 30. Since then, the market has staged what looks like a V-shaped recovery, bouncing back more than 15 percent, clawing back above preconflict levels and reaching new highs.

S&P 500 price

While the market’s ability to “look through” the ongoing geopolitical conflict may seem counterintuitive, it is, in fact, par for the course. According to RBC GAM’s analysis of historical episodes, geopolitical shocks tend to produce relatively short-lived market reactions.

Market response to acts of war

Returns and median statistics

Across past acts of war, the median experience on the market has been roughly a three-percent decline in the S&P 500 index. To be clear, we do believe there is plenty of scope for the persistence of the Middle Eastern conflict to drive increased volatility in the market. Ultimately, the market’s focus will return to earnings power. We believe this resilience can largely be attributed to strength in corporate earnings power, the AI investment wave and a U.S. economy that has thus far absorbed higher energy prices better than expected.  The prevailing read remains that this is a temporary supply shock, not the beginning of something structurally worse.

Navigating the markets and nonlinear geopolitical negotiations

These developments bear monitoring, and investors should brace themselves for negotiations to unfold in a nonlinear fashion. Geopolitical headline risk remains elevated in our view.

Overall, we believe the introduction of the MoU is a positive development. The early indications of what could be the contours of a formal resolution between the warring parties, along with ongoing negotiations, suggest that some grounds for stabilization may be near.

We suspect there is a sense of urgency on the part of the Trump administration to demonstrate a “win” prior to the looming midterm elections this fall—the war in the Middle East is deeply unpopular among voters. Further, this conflict is directly consequential for inflation and interest rates, while the affordability crisis in the U.S. is likely to weigh heavily on voters’ minds at the ballot box.   

As we mentioned in an earlier article on the topic, historical precedent would suggest resilience in the markets as investors’ time horizons expand. Staying calm, diversified and invested over the long term remains our recommendation.

---

---