The US objectives in Iran are easy enough to discern: halt Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, curb its support for terror groups, and gain leverage over oil flows and, by extension, China. That is all clear enough. What is not clear is how the US may go about pursuing those objectives, whether it is able to deliver on them, and what it might do if it initially fails.

A note from advisory firm Frans Cronje Private Clients argues that there are multiple pathways available along which the war may play out and that knowing which it will be is now “the most important piece of investor intelligence in the world,” given the extent to which the war will drive global market trends. Later this week, The Common Sense may publish a more detailed special report on Iran war scenarios produced by the firm.

Until then a short précis of some of those follows below.

One pathway along which the war may evolve is that the US neutralises missile and mine threats in the Strait of Hormuz, enabling escorted tankers to pass. This would be a decisive victory for Washington and a clear defeat for Iran’s new leadership. However, the technical challenges are significant.

Alternatively, if the US faces mounting economic and political pressures at home, a US strategic exit could become necessary. But given the new global prominence afforded to the Strait of Hormuz, this would leave Iran with arguably greater global strategic leverage than it has previously enjoyed. A variation of this ‘exit’ scenario is that the US seizes the Iranian uranium stockpile, thereby achieving the central objective of the war and allowing a mid-stream exit point.

Another scenario involves the removal of Iran’s leadership, either through military action or internal collapse, in the hope that a more pragmatic government might take over, potentially agreeing to dismantle Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.

In a further scenario, Iran could agree to de-escalate by allowing more oil shipments to pass through the Strait, easing global price pressures. In exchange, the US might agree to back off on its offensive campaigns. Talks may follow. But this would require Iran to scale back its hardline stance, which seems unlikely in the short term.

Another scenario is that if Iran refuses to allow oil shipments through the Strait, and the US cannot overcome the missile and mine threat, the US could work with regional allies to divert oil exports through pipelines in Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Iraq. Together with strategic reserve releases and exploiting new sources, this would reduce global price pressures, but it risks destabilizing Gulf economies by reducing their oil revenues—creating new political and security challenges for the US.

Finally, if none of these scenarios materialize, Iran might face a ground war involving special forces and local militias. This would likely lead to a regional civil war and significantly increase global oil prices for a considerable time. Such a war could have various outcomes aligned with US objectives. It might prompt the internal collapse necessary to bring an alternative government to power - which would, in turn, mark an exit point from the war. It might also absorb the resources of the Iranian administration to a degree that their focus fades from nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and even Hormuz in a desperate bid for regime survival—thereby meeting all the key US objectives. Alternatively, the war might allow the US to recover the uranium stockpile, providing an exit point.

Each of these scenarios will have different oil price, currency, and market implications. To date, oil is already up over 30%, the dollar by around 3%, and the Dow is down by 5%. By knowing and reading the scenarios, investors will have a better sense of how to navigate such dramatic short-term price swings.