What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is bearish, with concerns about sustained high oil prices, potential margin compression, and a possible shift in Fed policy leading to multiple contraction.
Risk: Sustained high oil prices and a potential shift in Fed policy leading to multiple contraction.
Opportunity: None identified
Key Points
The S&P 500 index has gained 10% since its recent March 30 low since the conflict began.
Wall Street analysts are optimistic about corporate earnings in the current quarter.
Despite price spikes, the global economy needs less oil today than it used to in the 1970s.
- These 10 stocks could mint the next wave of millionaires ›
Ever since the Iran war started on Feb. 28, the news has been full of alarming headlines, dire predictions, and tragic stories of human suffering. The price of oil had spiked to over $110 a barrel, the Federal Reserve has paused interest rate cuts due to worries about higher inflation, and the world is facing uncertainty about when (or if) the Strait of Hormuz will be open to economically vital shipments of oil and gas anytime soon.
But despite this geopolitical crisis, the stock market has been surprisingly resilient. The S&P 500 index is up about 1.8% year to date and has gained about 10% since March 30. The rest of the world is doing even better -- the Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund ETF (NASDAQ: VXUS) is up 9.8% year to date.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
Instead of the Iran war derailing the global economy, the stock market seems to be looking ahead and moving on. Here are five reasons why stocks have been so resilient, despite the conflict.
1. The world economy is vast, and the stock market is varied
Today it's easier than ever before to instantly get news updates and social media posts that zoom in on the places on Earth that are having wars, disasters, and tragedies. The stock market has to take in data and trends not just about any one place, but on a larger picture of the unfolding human experience across the global economy.
The closure of a strategically important passageway for oil like the Strait of Hormuz has a big impact on energy prices and other aspects of life all over the planet. But for the most part, no single country, conflict, or news event -- no matter how important it is to the people directly involved -- is "big" enough to completely disrupt the global stock market.
The stock market is trying to make sense of an even bigger, worldwide puzzle. And on a mundane level, the news everywhere in the world is not always so bad. The typical everyday human experience does not involve drone strikes. Instead, most people spend their days going to work, building, creating, learning, trading, collaborating with people, generating value, making a living, and making a life.
That spirit of human ingenuity and teamwork is what moves the stock market most of the time, more than any one tragic conflict or distressing news event.
2. The stock market is a forward-looking indicator
The stock market is always looking ahead. Stock prices change based not on which companies are making money today, but which companies investors believe will make money in the future. The stock market tends to bottom before the lowest point of an economic downturn and starts rising again before the economic news headlines start getting better.
Sometimes this feels like the market is overlooking too much bad news in the world. But the stock market's bias toward optimism is well-founded. Most of the time, in the long run, many things get better: The economy grows, companies get more efficient, consumers get access to more goods and services, the standard of living rises, and the stock market goes up.
3. Oil is less important than it used to be
The price of oil matters. There's no doubt the Iran war is causing pain for consumers at the gas pump and grocery store, and problems for emerging market economies in countries that are less able to afford a sudden increase in energy costs.
However, the conflict is unlikely to cause another devastating 1970s-style oil crisis. That's because in the decades since the OPEC oil embargo, the global economy has gotten less reliant on oil as an energy source. According to research from Standard Chartered PLC, the "energy intensity" of the global economy declined by 58% from 1970 to 2022, and the amount of oil needed to generate $1,000 of global GDP growth fell by 1.5 liters per year since 1984.
Factories have gotten smarter, vehicles have gotten more fuel-efficient, and buildings and appliances have been designed to conserve energy. Crude oil prices are up to 2022 levels, not all-time highs. Just look at the long-term trend in this chart:
The recent rise in oil prices has been shockingly fast, but the economic damage is likely to be manageable.
4. It's all about corporate earnings
Why do people buy stocks? Because they want to own a share of the earnings of businesses. And so far in 2026, energy prices, tariffs, and more, corporate earnings are still looking strong.
Recent research from Morgan Stanley strategists said that the stock market is in the "final phase" of a correction, and that the market "has appropriately and surgically discounted the risks both at the index and stock level." According to Bloomberg, Wall Street analysts expect 12% growth in first-quarter earnings for the S&P 500.
5. Crises come and go
The stock market usually has a short memory. It's worth reminding ourselves that we've been through some tough, bizarre times before -- very recently. Six years ago, we were all stuck at home during the COVID-19 pandemic, not sure if or when we'd be able to go to a movie theater or walk down a grocery store aisle without a mask on.
The S&P 500 index plummeted by about 30% from February to March 2020. And yet, by the end of 2020, the market had gone up 16%.
And for most people, life soon went "back to normal." The crisis ended. We survived one of the most stressful and surreal events of our lifetime, and the economy kept growing, and the stock market kept going up. Odds are good that the conflict with Iran will also end, hopefully soon, and humanity will keep building a brighter future together.
Where to invest $1,000 right now
When our analyst team has a stock tip, it can pay to listen. After all, Stock Advisor’s total average return is 1,002%* — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 195% for the S&P 500.
They just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy right now, available when you join Stock Advisor.
**Stock Advisor returns as of April 15, 2026. *
Ben Gran has positions in Vanguard Total International Stock ETF. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Vanguard Total International Stock ETF. The Motley Fool recommends Standard Chartered Plc. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
AI Talk Show
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"The market is underestimating the persistent inflationary pressure of high energy costs on corporate operating margins, which will likely force a downward revision of Q3 and Q4 earnings guidance."
The article’s reliance on 'resilience' as a predictive metric for the S&P 500 is dangerously backward-looking. While the 12% Q1 earnings growth projection is encouraging, it ignores the second-order impact of a sustained $110 oil price on core inflation, which forces the Fed to keep the federal funds rate in restrictive territory longer than the market has priced in. The 'energy intensity' argument is technically correct but ignores that supply chain shocks in the Strait of Hormuz don't just increase costs; they create systemic bottlenecks that hit manufacturing margins. I suspect the market is currently mispricing the duration of geopolitical risk, favoring tech-heavy indices while ignoring the inevitable margin compression in the industrial and consumer discretionary sectors.
If the 'forward-looking' nature of the market is correct, the current 10% gain since March 30 suggests investors are already pricing in a contained conflict and a cooling of energy prices, making the current valuation a rational entry point.
"S&P 500 resilience is fragile, vulnerable to Hormuz closure triggering stagflation and EPS misses beyond the article's optimistic gloss."
The S&P 500's 10% rebound from March 30 lows amid $110 oil and Fed rate cut freeze shows short-term resilience, but YTD gains lag at 1.8% versus VXUS's 9.8%, hinting US exceptionalism may falter. Article touts lower oil intensity (down 58% since 1970 per Standard Chartered), yet overlooks transport/logistics sectors where oil still drives 40%+ costs; prolonged Hormuz risks could spike Brent to $150+, eroding expected 12% Q1 EPS growth (Bloomberg). Morgan Stanley's 'final correction phase' call ignores 1970s stagflation parallels if inflation reaccelerates. Non-energy margins face 2-3% compression per historical oil shocks.
Markets are proven forward-lookers, bottoming before economic troughs as in 2020's 30% COVID plunge followed by 16% rebound, suggesting Iran conflict priced in with resolution imminent.
"Market resilience through March-April does not prove fundamentals are intact—it proves the market is forward-looking; the real test is Q2 earnings, where energy costs and supply-chain friction will show up in margins."
The article conflates 'market resilience' with 'fundamentals intact,' but conflates two different things. Yes, the S&P 500 is up 10% since March 30—but from what baseline? If we're measuring from a pre-shock high, that's recovery, not strength. The 12% Q1 earnings growth cited is forward guidance, not actuals; guidance tends to be optimistic pre-earnings. Oil at $110 is indeed lower than 2008 peaks, but the *velocity* of the spike matters for margin compression in Q2-Q3. The article also ignores that geopolitical risk premiums typically embed themselves slowly into valuations—we may not see the damage in equity prices until earnings actually disappoint, not before.
If the market has already 'surgically discounted' risks (per Morgan Stanley), then current valuations already price in moderate oil persistence and supply disruption; further upside is real if the conflict resolves faster than priced.
"Even with resilience, oil shocks and a higher-for-longer rate path threaten earnings multiples and could reprice the market lower."
The piece paints resilience as a given, but several risk angles deserve sharper focus. A sustained oil regime near 110+/barrel—or a renewed shock from Iran or Hormuz—could squeeze corporate margins, especially for energy-intensive industries and transport. The claim that oil’s impact has faded ignores inflation dynamics and potential supply-driven price spikes that destabilize growth. Markets are forward-looking, but a higher-for-longer Fed or tighter financial conditions could compress multiples even if earnings stay solid. The rally hinges on favorable macro policy and continued growth; if either falters, valuations may reprice, not uplift, the market.
The strongest counter is that a genuine escalation or persistent inflation would force the Fed to tighten further, lifting discount rates and compressing valuations. A material oil shock could also shatter the assumption that energy prices won’t derail growth, triggering stronger risk-off behavior.
"The market is failing to price in a shift in Fed reaction functions where inflation mandates override growth support, likely leading to severe multiple compression."
Grok's comparison to the 1970s stagflation is the missing link here. While everyone focuses on oil-driven margin compression, we are ignoring the impact of the 'Fed Put' effectively vanishing. In the 70s, the Fed was forced to prioritize inflation over growth, a dynamic we haven't seen since the post-GFC era. If energy costs force a shift in terminal rate expectations for 2025, the P/E multiple contraction will be far more violent than any earnings miss.
"1970s stagflation analogies fail due to US energy independence and tame core inflation dynamics."
Gemini's escalation of Grok's 1970s stagflation warning ignores structural shifts: US shale output (13mm bpd) now offsets OPEC vs. 1970s dependence, capping sustained $110+ Brent. Core inflation's 2.4% trend (May CPI) resists oil passthrough, per BLS data. Fed terminal at 3.1% (FOMC dots) implies mild 1x P/E trim, not violence—markets price 100bps cuts 2024, per CME FedWatch.
"Supply-side offsets matter only if they materialize before demand destruction; inflation lag risk is underpriced in current rate-cut expectations."
Grok's shale offset argument is mechanically sound but misses timing risk. US shale ramps production slowly; a Hormuz closure doesn't wait for supply response. The 2.4% core inflation figure is *current*—not forward. If oil stays $110+ through Q2, pass-through lags mean Q3 CPI could spike sharply, forcing Fed hawkishness despite CME cuts pricing. Terminal rate expectations shift fast once data rolls in, not linearly.
"A sustained high-oil regime increases policy risk and rate volatility, prompting faster asset multiple compression than earnings trends alone would imply."
Claude highlights timing risk and possible oil pass-through lag, but the bigger vulnerability is the policy response risk if oil stays near 110. A sustained regime could push real yields higher via inflation surprises, triggering faster-than-expected multiple compression even without an earnings miss. Watch credit spreads and rate volatility; they often lead equity downside before CPI or earnings softness materialize. This could reprice defensives and tech unevenly.
Panel Verdict
Consensus ReachedThe panel consensus is bearish, with concerns about sustained high oil prices, potential margin compression, and a possible shift in Fed policy leading to multiple contraction.
None identified
Sustained high oil prices and a potential shift in Fed policy leading to multiple contraction.