Iran-U.S. conflict escalates again: why Bitcoin doesn’t fall but holds steady despite a 4% surge in oil prices?

From July 7 to 13, 2026, military confrontation between the US and Iran around the Strait of Hormuz escalated at a startling pace. Within one week, US forces carried out four airstrikes on Iran; Iran announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz three times and launched missiles and drones at multiple Gulf countries. On July 13, Brent crude surged 4.00% intraday to $79 per barrel, while WTI crude rose nearly 4% in tandem. Gold, US stock futures, and Asia-Pacific stock markets were all under pressure across the board. In this round of geopolitical shocks, crypto assets showed features that differ from conventional expectations: Bitcoin was temporarily at $63,150, down 1.4% over 24 hours, with relatively limited volatility.

US forces conducted four airstrikes in one week: the pace and logic of escalation

On July 7, the US launched its first round of military strikes against Iran, citing retaliation for Iran’s attacks on merchant ships in the Strait of Hormuz. On July 8, the US carried out airstrikes for the second consecutive day. In the early hours of July 11 to 12, the US completed its third round of strikes, hitting about 140 Iranian military targets, including missile and drone launch sites, naval equipment, ammunition storage facilities, communications networks, and coastal surveillance stations. At 17:00 on July 12 (Eastern Time), the US launched its fourth round of strikes, aiming to “continue to weaken its ability to attack merchant ships in the Strait of Hormuz.”

Iran’s response also ramped up step by step. On July 7 and 8, Iran launched missile and drone attacks on US forces’ facilities in countries including Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and Jordan. On July 12, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced that “the Strait of Hormuz will be closed until further notice, until the US stops interfering in this region.” Afterwards, Iran attacked US military bases and radar stations in Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar with ballistic missiles and drones.

This pacing itself sends a clear signal: the conflict is no longer sporadic friction, but has entered a planned, stepped escalation track. The frequency of four airstrikes in a week is extremely rare in Middle East conflicts in recent years, meaning neither side is prioritizing diplomatic resolution.

Strait of Hormuz closure: the reality and data behind the world’s energy chokepoint

The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s most important energy shipping route, typically carrying about one-fifth of global seaborne oil and liquefied natural gas supply. After Iran announced the closure on July 12, vessel traffic plunged to the lowest level. According to Kpler vessel-tracking data, on Sunday only 6 ships remained passing through, the lowest in nearly five weeks. Other reports said only two product tankers were observed nearing this chokepoint. In the earlier US-Iran ceasefire period, the strait averaged about 32 ships passing per day.

The steep drop in strait traffic marks the key turning point of the conflict’s impact shifting from “expectation” to “reality.” As long as the strait is effectively closed, about 17 million barrels of seaborne oil per day worldwide faces disruption risk in transportation. This physical-layer supply shock is the direct driver of the oil-price surge and the starting point for all subsequent macro transmission chains.

Oil jumps 4%: the transmission chain from energy markets to rate-hike expectations

On July 13, Brent crude climbed 4.00% intraday to $79 per barrel, and WTI crude rose more than 3% to $73.64 per barrel. The backdrop for this move is that international oil prices had been falling for four straight weeks, while WTI crude closed up 4.46% over the past week. The geopolitical risk premium is being re-injected into oil pricing.

Rising oil prices affect the macro financial environment through two paths. The first is the inflation-expectations channel: higher energy prices directly lift the consumer price index, reinforcing inflation stickiness. The second is the monetary-policy channel: rising inflation expectations lead markets to reprice the Federal Reserve’s path of rate hikes. Data show the probability, as priced by markets, of two rate hikes by year-end has risen to 52.1%, and the US dollar index has strengthened accordingly.

This transmission chain—“oil prices rise → inflation stickiness → rate-hike expectations heat up → the dollar strengthens”—forms the core logic currently suppressing risk assets.

Bitcoin temporarily at $63,150: why didn’t the geopolitical risk premium get priced in significantly?

In this cross-asset selloff, Bitcoin’s performance is worth attention. On July 13, Bitcoin was temporarily at $63,150, down 1.4% over 24 hours, with its intraday trading range relatively narrowing. Gate market data show BTC traded in a tight range between $63,000 and $63,500, with both bulls and bears holding back. By contrast, spot gold fell as much as 1.6% to around $4,050 per ounce, and US stock futures and Asia-Pacific equities fell in sync.

Bitcoin did not follow the decline logic of traditional safe-haven assets (gold), nor did it drop sharply like risk assets (stocks). This relatively steady pattern in itself is a signal: the market does not view Bitcoin as a direct trading target for this round of geopolitical shocks.

The underlying structural reasons are worth examining. During earlier cycles of the US-Iran conflict, Bitcoin was often sold off quickly on news related to the Strait of Hormuz. But this time, the market seems to no longer treat Bitcoin as an asset for directly trading war risk. Bitcoin’s pricing is driven more by US dollar liquidity, interest-rate expectations, and the tech-stock cycle, while oil, gold, and interest rates assume the main role of pricing geopolitical risk. This implies that the transmission of the geopolitical risk premium into crypto assets is shifting from “direct reaction” to “indirect transmission”—working through macro liquidity and monetary-policy expectation effects.

Cross-asset correlation weakens: a structural shift in crypto asset pricing logic

The correlation between Bitcoin and traditional macro shocks is undergoing a structural change. The root of this shift is the institutionalization of the crypto market. As more traditional financial institutions participate in allocating to crypto assets, Bitcoin’s pricing logic is gradually moving from “retail sentiment-driven” to “macro-factor-driven”—but the macro factors it incorporates are mainly liquidity and interest rates, not geopolitical events themselves.

This feature makes crypto assets’ performance in geopolitical shocks more complex. If Middle East conditions continue to push up oil prices and reinforce the Federal Reserve’s “higher for longer” expectations, the dollar, US Treasuries, and gold may face ongoing pressure. But Bitcoin’s near-term direction depends more on the liquidity environment and risk appetite. The trading logic for crypto assets is shifting from being driven by geopolitical conflict to being driven by macro liquidity and the industry cycle.

However, this “decoupling” is not permanent. If the closure of the Strait of Hormuz lasts longer, triggering a supply shock on the scale of a global energy crisis, the intensity of the macro shock would exceed the current magnitude—at which point all risk assets, including Bitcoin, would face systematic pressure to reprice.

Lasting impact of the Strait of Hormuz closure and scenario projections

There are several scenarios for how the current conflict could unfold. Scenario 1: the strait restores passage within one to two weeks, and the conflict de-escalates into localized friction. In this case, oil prices would fall, rate-hike expectations would cool, risk assets would get breathing room, and Bitcoin could rebound on improving liquidity expectations. Scenario 2: the closure lasts for several weeks, and the world experiences a substantive supply gap in oil. Oil prices could return to the $90–$100 range, inflation expectations could rise sharply, the Federal Reserve would be forced to hike rates, the dollar would strengthen, global risk assets would come under pressure, and Bitcoin as a high beta asset would face downside pressure. Scenario 3: the conflict further expands into a broader region of the Middle East, with systematic damage to energy infrastructure. In this case, the global economy faces stagflation risk, and the pricing logic of all asset classes would be comprehensively rebuilt.

Based on the information available today, the likelihood of Scenario 1 is declining. US President Trump has announced that the ceasefire “is over,” and Iran’s parliamentary speaker and chief nuclear-negotiator Jalibaf claims that “the era of unilateral deals has ended.” Neither side has left room for quick reconciliation. The International Energy Agency previously warned that the current escalation could hinder efforts later this year to rebuild global depleted oil inventories. This means that even if the conflict eases in the short term, its cumulative effects will continue to weigh on energy markets and macro expectations for a period of time.

A crypto market observation framework from the geopolitical risk perspective

For participants in crypto markets, this US-Iran conflict provides an important sample for observing how geopolitical risk transmits. Several key indicators are worth tracking continuously: the number of vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz (reflecting the real extent of the supply shock), the price of Brent crude (reflecting how the market prices supply disruption), the US dollar index (reflecting the combined outcome of rate-hike expectations and risk-off sentiment), and the market’s pricing for the probability of Federal Reserve rate hikes (reflecting changes in monetary-policy expectations).

These indicators form a complete monitoring framework. Strait traffic is a physical leading indicator; oil prices are the market’s immediate response; and the US dollar index and rate-hike probability are the macro-level transmission outcomes. Bitcoin’s price action needs to be understood within this framework—it is not the first responder to geopolitical risk, but one of the ultimate absorbers of changes in macro liquidity conditions.

Summary

From July 7 to 13, 2026, the conflict between the US and Iran around the Strait of Hormuz escalated at a rare pace. Four US airstrikes in one week, Iran announcing the closure of the strait three times, and a 4% surge in Brent crude—these events combine to form one of the most severe geopolitical supply shocks in recent years. However, Bitcoin in this shock was temporarily at $63,150, down only 1.4% over 24 hours, without the kind of sharp volatility the market had expected.

This phenomenon reveals a structural shift in how crypto assets price geopolitical risk: Bitcoin is moving from being a “direct trading target for war risk” to an “indirect receiver driven by macro liquidity and interest-rate expectations.” The transmission of the geopolitical risk premium into crypto assets no longer works through a binary “safe-haven/risk” framework, but through an indirect chain of “oil prices → inflation → interest rates → the dollar → risk assets.”

FAQ

Q: How much does a Strait of Hormuz closure affect global energy supply?

The Strait of Hormuz typically carries about one-fifth of the world’s seaborne oil and liquefied natural gas supply, with about 32 ships passing per day on average. After Iran announced the closure, traffic plunged to only around 6 ships. This scale of disruption is enough to produce systemic impacts on the global energy market.

Q: Why did oil prices surge but Bitcoin only fell slightly?

Bitcoin’s pricing logic is shifting from being driven by geopolitical events to being driven by macro liquidity and interest-rate expectations. In this round of conflict, higher oil prices lift inflation expectations and the probability of rate hikes, which then affect the dollar and the liquidity environment. Bitcoin is impacted through this indirect chain, rather than reacting sharply to the conflict itself.

Q: Do crypto assets have safe-haven properties in geopolitical conflicts?

Judging from the performance in this US-Iran conflict, Bitcoin did not exhibit traditional safe-haven properties (such as gold rising in parts of the conflict). Bitcoin more often behaves like a high beta risk asset, with its走势 influenced more by liquidity and interest-rate conditions than by geopolitical events themselves.

Q: Which key indicators should be watched in the future?

It is recommended to track the number of vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz, the price of Brent crude, the trend in the US dollar index, and the market-implied probability of Federal Reserve rate hikes. These four indicators form a complete monitoring chain from physical supply shocks to macro transmission.

Q: Does Gate support trading US stocks whose prices are impacted by geopolitics?

Gate has launched real US stock trading services and supports trading more than 10,000 US stocks and ETF products. Users can directly use USDT on the platform to participate in investments in the US mainstream securities market.