This is a paid article which your subscription is allowing you to read.

As Americans and Iranians prepare to sit down for talks this weekend, it is worth assessing the advice provided to date on what the likely economic, energy price, and market implications of the war will be.

The Strait of Hormuz remains central to the conflict and its market and economic implications. The ceasefire was explicitly tied to its reopening, yet in practice, Iran has imposed strict new controls on transit. By some estimates, the Iranians intend for no more than 15 vessels per day to pass through the strait, each requiring explicit Iranian approval and adherence to a defined protocol overseen by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Further complicating the talks is that Iran could also attach financial conditions to the ceasefire. Tehran is demanding that its frozen overseas assets be released within the two-week window, framing this as a core guarantee of compliance. The combination of restricted shipping and financial leverage underscores that, even under ceasefire conditions, Iran retains significant control over both the pace and direction of de-escalation.

There is also deep disagreement over what the ceasefire actually covers. Iran maintains that Israeli operations in Lebanon fall within its scope, while the United States (US) and Israel reject that interpretation, with strikes on Hezbollah positions continuing.

Other conditions, such as retaining the ability to develop missiles and enrich uranium, mean that caution is warranted around any sense that the talks will culminate in a clear win-win resolution.

Perhaps most important in weighing all of that, and trying to calculate what happens next, is to appreciate that Western and non-Western administrations have very different mindsets around the purpose of negotiations. For Westerners, the purpose is to find a common-ground settlement. For non-Westerners, the purpose is to continue a conflict by other means and win long-term concessions around which to undermine an enemy.

The upshot of all this is that it is perhaps premature to assume that the talks will deliver a neat consensus deal that locks in long-term certainty around Hormuz. And indeed, flare-ups and even short resumptions of full-on warfare, could yet play out.

However, in another sense, the talks could mark a near-term exit point to the worst of the war, especially in the sense of its economic and markets repercussions.

As The Common Sense has reported at length, for all the intensity of the conflict and the scale of the rhetoric surrounding it, its global economic impact to date has been far more muted than widely assumed. A month into the war, oil prices have remained broadly in line with their inflation-adjusted averages over the past 15 years, with petrol prices in both South Africa and the US tracking similar stability. Global growth forecasts have also held steady, remaining broadly consistent with projections made at the end of 2025.

Currency and equity markets reinforce that picture. The US dollar, which would typically surge in a genuine global crisis, is weaker than it was a year before the war began. Major equity indices, including the FTSE 100, the S&P 500, and the Johannesburg All Share Index, continue to trade substantially higher, by around 40%, than their levels a year ago. From a global markets perspective, the war has not triggered the kind of systemic shock that much of the commentary had anticipated, and in fact, the macro effects have been muted to an extent since the end of the first week of the fighting.

Early in the war, this newspaper set out six scenarios for how it might conclude.

In the best case, the US secured the strait militarily and restored oil flows.

A second path saw Washington withdraw under pressure without securing Hormuz.

A third hinged on a leadership rupture inside Iran that produced a more pragmatic regime willing to cut a deal.

A fourth saw Tehran deliberately ease tensions while retaining long-term leverage over Hormuz.

A fifth hinged on structural shifts, with Gulf states bypassing Hormuz altogether and eroding Iran’s influence over time.

In all of these, oil prices and the dollar would come off as markets spike upwards.

If none of these paths materialise, the conflict risks shifting into a far more dangerous phase. A sixth scenario flagged a drawn-out regional ground war, involving militias and potentially US forces, with sustained pressure on oil markets, a stronger dollar, and prolonged global instability.

While all scenarios remain in play, advice throughout has been that the conflict sees a nearer –term, rather than a longer-term, conclusion via scenarios two and four coalescing. That remains the house view.