To my readers: thank you for following my work. If you find value in these insights, I encourage you to consider a paid subscription. Managing the data required to provide this level of analysis is a significant, self-funded endeavor, and your support not only keeps this platform running but also unlocks a direct line for you to reach me with questions, comments, or deeper explorations. Your feedback is what keeps this conversation honest and grounded in the reality of the numbers.
Lately, I’ve been struck by the strange silence coming from the “$200 oil” chorus. Given the renewed tensions between the U.S. and Iran, you’d expect them to be out in full force, yet they seem to be lying low. Make no mistake: this silence is strategic. They aren’t changing their tune; they are simply shifting their strategy to salvage their reputation by spinning “urban legends” to explain why their original, gravity-defying forecasts failed to materialize. By mudding the waters with misinformation, they hope to distract from the reality that the market reacted exactly as economic fundamentals—specifically the price elasticity of demand—predicted it would when the Strait of Hormuz was effectively shuttered.
The first myth they are propagating is that the Strait of Hormuz remained open throughout the conflict, allowing oil to flow freely. This is demonstrably false. We now have access to official export data from Gulf nations that confirms what many of us saw in real-time: oil tanker transits didn’t just dip; they practically flatlined in March and April. While it is true that access to high-quality maritime tracking data is expensive and often gatekept by a few private firms, the public sector records we are now seeing tell a very clear story. Looking at Iraq’s export figures, we see a nosedive to nearly zero, and Qatar’s export values show a parallel collapse during the same period. Any claim that the pipes stayed open is a revisionist attempt to rewrite the historical record.
The second myth, and perhaps the more absurd one, is the idea that China acted as a market stabilizer by single-handedly curbing its oil imports to keep prices under control. To buy this, one would have to ignore both the mechanics of global energy markets and China’s own geopolitical interests. The reality is far less conspiratorial: every major Asian economy with sufficient national stockpiles—including Japan and South Korea—did the exact same thing. When prices peaked, these nations strategically drew down their inventories to avoid buying into an inflated market. China is not a unique actor here, nor was it performing some altruistic service for the U.S. economy. The only real outlier was India, which lacked the necessary reserves and was forced to continue importing, albeit protected by sanction waivers on Russian crude.
This misinformation is not merely an annoyance; it is dangerous because it influences market sentiment and directs investment capital toward flawed premises. When these talking points are repeated in boardrooms and financial meetings with the same frequency as criticisms of the U.S. blockade, it signals a failure to grasp the material facts of this conflict. The goal of these myths is to provide a “soft landing” for the credibility of analysts who were fundamentally wrong about where oil prices were heading, distracting from the fact that the price ceiling of $125 was remarkably consistent with academic models of supply-side shocks.
Finally, we must address the effectiveness of the current U.S. blockade, which is far more aggressive and sophisticated than its predecessor. We aren’t just seeing broad mandates; we are seeing precise, targeted strikes against Iranian infrastructure—disabling empty tankers to prevent them from acting as floating storage and systematically dismantling key port assets. Blockade 2.0 is already biting hard. We are seeing sharp, immediate drops in Iran’s non-oil imports, signaling that the pressure is translating into the real-world economic pain of shortages and hyperinflation. The narrative that Iran possesses an “asymmetric advantage” or that the blockade is ineffective is simply not supported by the data. The reality is harsh, but it is clear: the blockade is working, the data proves it, and it is time for the market to stop listening to those who prefer myths over metrics.