Iran's Trump card: The risk premium hasn't gone. It just changed shape

The latest attack on a commercial vessel near the Strait of Hormuz can be seen as an aberration. But it may also turn out to be the most revealing event since Washington and Tehran agreed to a framework aimed at ending months of conflict. The war may have paused, oil prices may have retreated from their peaks and shipping has started moving again, but one strike on a vessel can be enough to remind markets that the central problem has not been solved.

The assumption after the US-Iran framework agreement was that the risk premium embedded in energy markets would steadily fade as traffic returned to normal. What the latest attack demonstrates is something different. The premium is still there. It has simply changed from fears of outright war to fears of prolonged uncertainty. Investors are no longer pricing in a regional conflagration. But they might begin to price in a future where Iran can repeatedly inject disruption into one of the world's most important maritime arteries whenever negotiations hit a difficult patch.

ALSO READ | Iran insists on right to control shipping in Strait of Hormuz after ship hit near Oman

From closure risk to control risk

For most of the conflict, the dominant market fear was straightforward. Iran could shut the Strait of Hormuz and choke off a significant share of global oil flows. The reopening of shipping lanes after the US-Iran agreement appeared to remove that threat.

Iran's response after the vessel attack is particularly revealing. Rather than threatening a complete blockade, Tehran reiterated its right to regulate shipping through the strait and argued that safe passage cannot be guaranteed without recognition of Iran's role. Iranian officials criticised a joint US-Gulf position that rejected Iranian attempts to impose tolls or restrictions on vessels transiting the waterway. Tehran also insisted that Hormuz should be jointly managed by Iran and Oman rather than being governed by arrangements backed by outside powers.

That distinction is important because a complete shutdown is a blunt instrument. It invites military retaliation and damages Iran's own economic interests. Control is more sustainable. It allows Tehran to retain leverage without triggering the full costs of escalation. Markets may slowly begin to understand this difference.

The price of passage

Beneath the headlines about drones, missiles and shipping disruptions lies a quieter dispute that may ultimately matter more. Iran increasingly appears to be treating Hormuz not simply as a strategic chokepoint but as a source of long-term political and economic leverage. Its argument is if Iran is expected to guarantee security in waters that sit along its coastline, then countries benefiting from that security should recognise Tehran's role and authority. Embedded within this argument is a broader idea that passage through Hormuz cannot be treated as a cost-free entitlement detached from regional politics.

This is where the dispute with Washington becomes especially significant. During his latest Gulf tour, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly rejected any suggestion that Iran should be permitted to levy tolls, transit fees or other charges on international shipping. The US and Gulf Cooperation Council states jointly reaffirmed that navigation through Hormuz must remain free of tolls and restrictions. Rubio reportedly warned that any attempt to monetise passage through the strait would be unacceptable and could undermine the broader peace process.

What makes this dispute important is that it shifts the conversation from security to sovereignty. The argument is no longer simply about whether ships can pass. It is about who gets to set the terms of passage.

Viewed from Tehran, control over Hormuz is one of the few assets capable of offsetting the enormous asymmetry that exists between Iran and the US. Viewed from Washington and Gulf capitals, allowing Iran to impose conditions or fees would effectively legitimise a form of political control over a waterway through which a substantial portion of global energy supplies move. That disagreement would be at the heart of the current negotiations.

The message behind the ship attack

The most important aspect of the latest incident is not the vessel that was struck. It is the message that accompanied it. Only days after signing a framework agreement, Iran has reminded every stakeholder in the region that stability in Hormuz remains conditional. The strike came at a moment when shipping companies were attempting to restore normal schedules and energy traders were becoming more comfortable about supply flows. Suddenly those assumptions can begin to look premature.

The attack also exposed how fragile the recovery remains. The United Nations suspended maritime escort and evacuation operations after the incident. Traffic through the strait slowed sharply. Iran warned that vessels operating outside approved routes could face risks. Reports indicated that tanker movements through Hormuz fell significantly compared with previous days. In other words, Iran did not need to close Hormuz to create uncertainty. It only needed to demonstrate that uncertainty remains available as an option.

Trump handed over a strong card to Iran

In defending the agreement with Iran, Trump argued that prolonged disruption in Hormuz would have pushed the world towards economic chaos because energy reserves were being rapidly depleted and supply chains were coming under severe strain. The comments were notable because they amounted to a public acknowledgment from the White House that Hormuz remains one of the most consequential pressure points in the global economy and prolonged disruption can force the US to change its posture. Those comments strengthen Iran's negotiating position. If Washington was motivated in part by fears of sustained disruption to global energy flows, Tehran now knows that its geographic leverage remains highly relevant even after active hostilities have largely subsided. The latest vessel attack serves as a reminder of that reality.

Iran is stacking the deck in its favour

Viewed through this lens, recent Iranian actions begin to look less like isolated provocations and more like negotiating signals. The unresolved issues between Washington and Tehran remain extensive. Nuclear inspections, sanctions relief, financial compensation, regional security arrangements and the future governance of Hormuz itself are still under discussion. The current agreement is closer to an armed truce than a final settlement.

By asserting authority over shipping and demonstrating its ability to affect maritime traffic, Iran appears to be entering these negotiations from a position of maximum leverage. Tehran is effectively saying that normalisation cannot occur without Iranian cooperation.

This does not mean Iran controls the outcome. The US retains overwhelming financial, military and diplomatic advantages. What it does mean is that Tehran possesses a powerful veto over stability. That is often enough to shape negotiations even when it is not enough to dictate them. The vessel attack therefore looks less like an act of military escalation and more like a reminder. Iran is indicating that while the war may have paused, the leverage it accumulated during the conflict has not disappeared.

The new risk premium

The market's mistake would be to assume that risk disappears once shooting stops. The premium embedded in oil prices and shipping costs during the war was driven by fears of catastrophic disruption. The premium emerging now is driven by fears of recurring disruption. Those are not the same thing.

Under the old scenario, traders worried about a dramatic closure of Hormuz. Under the new scenario, they might begin to worry about sporadic incidents, political brinkmanship, delayed cargoes, higher insurance costs and periodic reminders that the route remains vulnerable. Shipping remains well below normal levels. Even though oil prices have plunged sharply, hundreds of vessels are still affected by the aftermath of the conflict, freight rates remain elevated and insurers continue to factor geopolitical uncertainty into their calculations. More importantly, markets may now confront an additional question whether passage through Hormuz could eventually become subject to new political conditions, regulatory requirements or economic charges. That possibility introduces a different kind of uncertainty. It is uncertainty about governance rather than warfare. Yet for investors, traders and policymakers, the financial consequences can be significant.

The latest vessel attack suggests that the post-war Gulf is entering a new phase. The immediate danger is no longer a full-scale conflict between Iran and the US. The greater challenge may be something harder to quantify and therefore harder to eliminate too.