On June 13, 2025, Israel's attacks on two major Iranian energy facilities led to a rapid repricing of oil supply risks. However, market strategists believe that the initial surge in crude oil and energy stocks does not yet signal a reliable buying opportunity.
Impact on Oil Markets
The market's immediate reaction was intense. On June 13, Brent crude closed at $74.23 per barrel, a 7.02% increase in a single day, as traders quickly adjusted prices to account for potential supply disruptions in the Middle East.
The distinction in this situation lies in the fact that while infrastructure was attacked and fires were controlled, core refining capacity remained intact. Although this event has not yet caused a lasting supply shock, it has altered the risk assessment for every barrel of crude oil passing through the region.
Why Strategists Are Still Cautious on Buying
Noah Barrett, an energy analyst at Janus Henderson, stated that the firm anticipates "the rally to fade unless there is evidence of actual supply disruptions." This sentiment reflects a market consensus: a single-day price surge driven by fear does not equate to a structural change in supply.
The stakes are high, as approximately 25% of global crude oil and 20% of liquefied natural gas (LNG) transit through the Strait of Hormuz. Any sustained disruption to this vital chokepoint would have ripple effects across global energy markets, explaining the intensity of the initial reaction.
However, Iran's daily production is around 3.3 million barrels, and the confirmed losses so far have not significantly impacted overall output. Strategists at Janus Henderson caution that if the attacks do not lead to long-term production losses, the initial rebound in oil prices and energy stocks may fade. Ben Hoft, quoted by Reuters, noted that "any further escalation could follow the 'energy for energy' logic," suggesting that the risk is not gone but also not yet confirmed.
This pattern is not unfamiliar in commodity markets: prices surge on threats, only to pull back once actual disruptions are less severe than anticipated. Strategists are not dismissing the risk entirely, but they believe that sustained buying signals in oil markets and energy stocks require evidence of ongoing supply loss, not just headlines.
The next catalyst is straightforward: subsequent attacks will either halt Iranian production for weeks, thus confirming the supply narrative, or facilities will return to normal operations, and the premium will dissipate. Until this clarity emerges, the market signal is to wait, not to buy.