From July 7 to 13, 2026, the military confrontation between the United States and Iran over the Strait of Hormuz escalated at a remarkable pace. The US military launched four airstrikes against Iran within a week, while Iran announced the closure of the Strait three times and fired missiles and drones at several Gulf countries. On July 13, Brent crude surged 4.00% intraday to $79 per barrel, with WTI crude rising nearly 4% as well. Gold, US stock futures, and Asia-Pacific equities all came under pressure. Amid this wave of geopolitical shocks, crypto assets behaved differently from traditional expectations—Bitcoin traded at $63,150, down 1.4% over 24 hours, with relatively limited volatility.
Four US Airstrikes in One Week: The Pace and Logic of Escalation
On July 7, the US military launched its first round of strikes against Iran, citing a response to Iranian attacks on commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz. On July 8, the US carried out airstrikes for a second consecutive day. Between July 11 and the early hours of July 12, the US completed its third round, targeting roughly 140 Iranian military sites, including missile and drone launch positions, naval equipment, ammunition storage, communications networks, and coastal surveillance stations. On July 12 at 5 p.m. (US Eastern Time), the US initiated a fourth round, aiming to "further degrade Iran’s ability to attack commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz."
Iran’s response escalated in parallel. On July 7 and 8, Iran launched missile and drone attacks on US facilities in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and Jordan. On July 12, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps declared, "The Strait of Hormuz will remain closed until further notice, until the US ceases interference in the region." Subsequently, Iran attacked US bases and radar stations in Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar with ballistic missiles and drones.
This rapid escalation sends a clear signal: the conflict has moved beyond sporadic skirmishes and entered a planned, stepwise escalation. Four airstrikes in one week is extremely rare in recent Middle East conflicts, indicating that neither side prioritizes diplomatic resolution.
Strait of Hormuz Closure: Real-Time Data from the Global Energy Chokepoint
The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s most critical energy shipping route, typically carrying about one-fifth of global seaborne oil and liquefied natural gas. After Iran’s closure announcement on July 12, vessel traffic plummeted to its lowest levels. According to Kpler vessel tracking data, only six ships passed through on Sunday, a five-week low. Other reports noted just two product tankers approaching the chokepoint. Previously, during the US-Iran ceasefire, the Strait averaged about 32 vessels per day.
This dramatic drop in traffic marks the turning point from "expected" to "actual" impact. As long as the Strait remains effectively closed, roughly 17 million barrels of seaborne oil per day face disruption risk. This physical supply shock is the direct driver behind surging oil prices and the starting point for all subsequent macroeconomic transmission chains.
Oil Prices Surge 4%: Transmission from Energy Markets to Rate Hike Expectations
On July 13, Brent crude jumped 4.00% intraday to $79 per barrel, while WTI crude climbed over 3% to $73.64 per barrel. This surge follows four consecutive weeks of declining international oil prices, with WTI up 4.46% over the past week. Geopolitical risk premiums are being reintroduced into oil pricing.
Rising oil prices affect the macro financial environment through two channels. First, the inflation expectations channel: higher energy prices directly push up the consumer price index, reinforcing inflation stickiness. Second, the monetary policy channel: elevated inflation expectations prompt markets to reprice the Federal Reserve’s rate hike trajectory. Data shows the probability of two rate hikes by year-end has risen to 52.1%, strengthening the US dollar.
This transmission chain—"rising oil prices → sticky inflation → higher rate hike expectations → stronger dollar"—forms the core logic currently suppressing risk assets.
Bitcoin at $63,150: Why Has Geopolitical Risk Premium Not Been Fully Priced In?
Bitcoin’s performance amid this cross-asset selloff is notable. On July 13, Bitcoin traded at $63,150, down 1.4% over 24 hours, with a relatively narrow intraday range. Gate market data shows BTC oscillating between $63,000 and $63,500, with both bulls and bears remaining cautious. In contrast, spot gold fell as much as 1.6% to around $4,050 per ounce, while US stock futures and Asia-Pacific equities also declined.
Bitcoin did not follow the traditional safe-haven asset (gold) downward nor did it plunge like risk assets (stocks). This relative stability signals that the market does not view Bitcoin as a direct trading proxy for this round of geopolitical shocks.
The structural reasons behind this deserve exploration. In previous US-Iran conflict cycles, Bitcoin was quickly sold off in response to news related to the Strait of Hormuz. Now, the market no longer treats Bitcoin as a direct war-risk asset. Its pricing is more influenced by US dollar liquidity, rate expectations, and tech stock cycles, while oil, gold, and rates bear the brunt of geopolitical risk pricing. This means the transmission of geopolitical risk premium to crypto assets is shifting from "direct reaction" to "indirect transmission"—primarily via macro liquidity and monetary policy expectations.
Weakened Cross-Asset Linkages: Structural Changes in Crypto Asset Pricing Logic
Bitcoin’s correlation with traditional macro shocks is undergoing structural change. The root cause is the institutionalization of the crypto market. As more traditional financial institutions allocate to crypto assets, Bitcoin’s pricing logic is shifting from "retail sentiment-driven" to "macro factor-driven"—but the macro factors it incorporates are mainly liquidity and rates, not geopolitical events themselves.
This characteristic makes crypto asset performance amid geopolitical shocks more complex. If Middle East tensions continue to drive oil prices higher and reinforce the Fed’s "higher for longer" outlook, the dollar, US Treasuries, and gold may remain under pressure, but Bitcoin’s short-term trajectory will depend more on liquidity conditions and risk appetite. Crypto trading logic is moving from geopolitical conflict-driven to macro liquidity and industry cycle-driven.
However, this "decoupling" is not permanent. If the Strait of Hormuz remains closed for an extended period, triggering a global energy crisis-level supply shock, the intensity of macro shocks will exceed the current scale, and all risk assets—including Bitcoin—will face systemic repricing pressure.
Lasting Impact and Scenario Analysis of the Strait of Hormuz Closure
Several scenarios are possible for the current conflict. Scenario one: the Strait reopens within one to two weeks, and the conflict de-escalates to localized skirmishes. In this case, oil prices will retreat, rate hike expectations cool, risk assets get a breather, and Bitcoin may rebound on improved liquidity prospects. Scenario two: the Strait remains closed for several weeks, causing a substantial global oil supply shortfall. Oil prices could return to the $90–$100 range, inflation expectations surge, the Fed is forced to hike rates, the dollar strengthens, global risk assets come under pressure, and Bitcoin—as a high-beta asset—faces downside risk. Scenario three: the conflict expands further across the Middle East, with systemic damage to energy infrastructure. Here, the global economy faces stagflation risk, and asset pricing logic undergoes a comprehensive overhaul.
Based on current information, scenario one is becoming less likely. US President Trump has declared the ceasefire "over," while Iranian Parliament Speaker and chief nuclear negotiator Ghalibaf stated that "the era of unilateral deals is over." Both sides’ rhetoric leaves little room for quick reconciliation. The International Energy Agency previously warned that further escalation could hinder efforts to rebuild depleted global oil inventories later this year. This suggests that even if tensions ease in the short term, their cumulative effects will continue to impact energy markets and macro expectations for some time.
A Geopolitical Risk Perspective: Crypto Market Monitoring Framework
For crypto market participants, this US-Iran conflict offers a valuable sample for observing geopolitical risk transmission mechanisms. Several key indicators merit ongoing tracking: the number of vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz (reflecting the real extent of supply disruption), Brent crude prices (capturing market pricing of supply interruptions), the US dollar index (reflecting the combined effects of rate hike expectations and risk-off sentiment), and market pricing of Fed rate hike probabilities (showing shifts in monetary policy expectations).
Together, these indicators form a comprehensive monitoring framework. Strait traffic is the leading physical indicator, oil prices are the immediate market response, while the dollar index and rate hike probabilities are macro-level transmission results. Bitcoin’s price action should be understood within this framework—it is not the first responder to geopolitical risk, but one of the ultimate recipients of changes in the macro liquidity environment.
Conclusion
From July 7 to 13, 2026, the US-Iran conflict over the Strait of Hormuz escalated at an unprecedented pace. Four US airstrikes in a week, three Iranian Strait closure announcements, and a 4% surge in Brent crude—all together mark one of the most severe geopolitical supply shocks in recent years. Yet, Bitcoin traded at $63,150, down just 1.4% over 24 hours, without the dramatic volatility the market had anticipated.
This phenomenon reveals a structural shift in how crypto assets price geopolitical risk: Bitcoin is moving from being a "direct trading proxy for war risk" to an "indirect recipient of macro liquidity and rate expectations." The transmission of geopolitical risk premium to crypto assets now operates through an indirect chain—"oil prices → inflation → rates → dollar → risk assets"—rather than a binary "safe haven/risk" framework.
FAQ
Q: How much does the Strait of Hormuz closure impact global energy supply?
The Strait of Hormuz typically carries about one-fifth of global seaborne oil and liquefied natural gas, with an average of 32 vessels passing through daily. After Iran announced the closure, traffic dropped to just about six vessels. This scale of disruption is enough to have a systemic impact on global energy markets.
Q: Why did oil prices surge while Bitcoin only saw a modest decline?
Bitcoin’s pricing logic is shifting from being driven by geopolitical events to being driven by macro liquidity and rate expectations. In this conflict, rising oil prices have pushed up inflation expectations and the probability of rate hikes, affecting the dollar and liquidity environment—Bitcoin is influenced by this indirect chain, rather than reacting directly to the conflict itself.
Q: Do crypto assets have safe-haven properties during geopolitical conflicts?
Based on the US-Iran conflict, Bitcoin has not exhibited traditional safe-haven behavior (such as gold’s gains during some conflicts). Bitcoin acts more as a high-beta risk asset, with its performance influenced more by liquidity and rate environments than by geopolitical events themselves.
Q: Which key indicators should be monitored going forward?
It’s advisable to track the number of vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz, Brent crude prices, the US dollar index, and market pricing of Fed rate hike probabilities. These four indicators form a complete monitoring chain from physical supply shocks to macro-level transmission.
Q: Does Gate support trading US stocks affected by geopolitical events?
Gate has launched a genuine US stock trading service, supporting over 10,000 US stocks and ETFs. Users can directly invest in mainstream US securities markets on the platform using USDT.
