• International Monetary Fund (IMF): The IMF has cut its forecast for 2026 global growth to 3.1%, down from the 3.3% it projected in January and a deceleration from the 3.4% expansion seen in 2025 . The fund warned that the conflict has "halted" global economic momentum . In a more severe scenario with prolonged energy shocks, the IMF projects global growth could slow to just 2.5% .
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): The OECD projects global GDP growth will ease to 2.9% in 2026, down from 3.3% in 2025, as the energy price surge and the unpredictable nature of the conflict offset other economic tailwinds . OECD chief Mathias Cormann highlighted the "high level of uncertainty," noting the outlook is subject to "significant downside risks that could result in lower growth and higher inflation" .
• JPMorgan: The bank now anticipates a negative growth shock, with higher energy prices squeezing consumer spending and weighing on the job market. Its economists believe rising transportation and input costs from elevated oil prices could push core inflation past 3% .

Energy-driven inflation: the largest oil shock in history

The central transmission mechanism for economic pain is the oil market. The IEA’s classification of the supply disruption as historic underscores the severity of the situation .

The immediate impact was felt at the pump. U.S. gasoline prices surged roughly 25% within two weeks of the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran . Research from the Dallas Fed confirmed that the oil shock rapidly fed into retail gasoline prices, with Federal Reserve officials expressing concern about a short-term inflation spike directly stemming from energy costs .

Crucially, U.S. inflation was already stuck above 3% before the conflict began, making the economy particularly vulnerable to a new energy-driven price wave. BNP Paribas assessed that inflation is now the primary macroeconomic risk, with the U.S. more exposed than other advanced economies due to its reliance on external energy supplies . The OECD reinforced this, warning that the near-halt of energy shipments through Hormuz threatens to push inflation sharply higher across the globe .

Central bank paralysis and the risk of rate hikes

The oil shock has placed central banks, particularly the Federal Reserve, in a painful policy bind, described by one economist as "utterly paralyzed" .

• Federal Reserve: At its March 2026 meeting, the first since the war began, the Fed held interest rates steady at 3.50%–3.75%, pausing any plans for rate cuts as it assessed the inflationary impact of the oil spike . The decision was not unanimous, with the March "dot plot" of interest-rate projections signaling support for only a single rate cut in 2026 .
• Warnings of hikes, not cuts: Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee, once optimistic about multiple rate cuts in 2026, warned that the energy price shock from the Iran war has made that outlook much more uncertain and could delay or derail rate reductions . In a more dramatic warning, KPMG chief economist Diane Swonk said the Fed may be forced to actually raise interest rates in the second half of 2026 as stagflation risks deepen, arguing that entrenched stagflation could ultimately require a deep recession to resolve .
• Global coordination: The Fed is not alone. Top central banks globally, including the Bank of Canada, Bank of England, and European Central Bank, have said they stand ready to tighten policy further if war-led inflation persists .

Stagflation: the 1970s comparison is back

The combination of slowing growth and rising energy-driven inflation has revived the term "stagflation" in economic discourse. The conflict has been explicitly compared to the 1970s energy crisis, with its acute supply shortages, currency volatility, and heightened recession risks .

JPMorgan itself noted that while the U.S. economy is far less oil-intensive than in the 1970s, the potential oil and gas supply disruptions from this conflict could rival or even exceed those of that era . Policymakers globally have warned of growing stagflation risks .

BNP Paribas assesses that a full stagflation episode remains unlikely for the euro area, but the U.S. is markedly more vulnerable. Its analysis points to U.S. inflation remaining stuck above 3% and a higher reliance on external energy supplies as key risk factors . The core bind for policymakers is stark: lower rates to support growth and they risk unleashing another inflation surge; raise or hold rates to fight inflation and they risk tipping the economy into a recession.

Despite the gloom, some mitigating factors exist. JPMorgan analysts have also noted that global energy markets entered 2026 in a position of relative strength, with OPEC+ possessing spare capacity and U.S. shale production near record highs . However, Bloomberg Economics has warned that even if a Hormuz blockade is lifted, significant damage to regional energy facilities will take months to repair, meaning supply disruptions could persist long after the fighting stops . For now, the Goldilocks era is definitively over, replaced by a landscape of higher prices, slower growth, and deepening uncertainty.

• International Monetary Fund (IMF): The IMF has cut its forecast for 2026 global growth to 3.1%, down from the 3.3% it projected in January and a deceleration from the 3.4% expansion seen in 2025 . The fund warned that the conflict has "halted" global economic momentum . In a more severe scenario with prolonged energy shocks, the IMF projects global growth could slow to just 2.5% .
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): The OECD projects global GDP growth will ease to 2.9% in 2026, down from 3.3% in 2025, as the energy price surge and the unpredictable nature of the conflict offset other economic tailwinds . OECD chief Mathias Cormann highlighted the "high level of uncertainty," noting the outlook is subject to "significant downside risks that could result in lower growth and higher inflation" .
• JPMorgan: The bank now anticipates a negative growth shock, with higher energy prices squeezing consumer spending and weighing on the job market. Its economists believe rising transportation and input costs from elevated oil prices could push core inflation past 3% .

Energy-driven inflation: the largest oil shock in history

The central transmission mechanism for economic pain is the oil market. The IEA’s classification of the supply disruption as historic underscores the severity of the situation .

The immediate impact was felt at the pump. U.S. gasoline prices surged roughly 25% within two weeks of the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran . Research from the Dallas Fed confirmed that the oil shock rapidly fed into retail gasoline prices, with Federal Reserve officials expressing concern about a short-term inflation spike directly stemming from energy costs .

Crucially, U.S. inflation was already stuck above 3% before the conflict began, making the economy particularly vulnerable to a new energy-driven price wave. BNP Paribas assessed that inflation is now the primary macroeconomic risk, with the U.S. more exposed than other advanced economies due to its reliance on external energy supplies . The OECD reinforced this, warning that the near-halt of energy shipments through Hormuz threatens to push inflation sharply higher across the globe .

Central bank paralysis and the risk of rate hikes

The oil shock has placed central banks, particularly the Federal Reserve, in a painful policy bind, described by one economist as "utterly paralyzed" .

• Federal Reserve: At its March 2026 meeting, the first since the war began, the Fed held interest rates steady at 3.50%–3.75%, pausing any plans for rate cuts as it assessed the inflationary impact of the oil spike . The decision was not unanimous, with the March "dot plot" of interest-rate projections signaling support for only a single rate cut in 2026 .
• Warnings of hikes, not cuts: Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee, once optimistic about multiple rate cuts in 2026, warned that the energy price shock from the Iran war has made that outlook much more uncertain and could delay or derail rate reductions . In a more dramatic warning, KPMG chief economist Diane Swonk said the Fed may be forced to actually raise interest rates in the second half of 2026 as stagflation risks deepen, arguing that entrenched stagflation could ultimately require a deep recession to resolve .
• Global coordination: The Fed is not alone. Top central banks globally, including the Bank of Canada, Bank of England, and European Central Bank, have said they stand ready to tighten policy further if war-led inflation persists .

Stagflation: the 1970s comparison is back

The combination of slowing growth and rising energy-driven inflation has revived the term "stagflation" in economic discourse. The conflict has been explicitly compared to the 1970s energy crisis, with its acute supply shortages, currency volatility, and heightened recession risks .

JPMorgan itself noted that while the U.S. economy is far less oil-intensive than in the 1970s, the potential oil and gas supply disruptions from this conflict could rival or even exceed those of that era . Policymakers globally have warned of growing stagflation risks .

BNP Paribas assesses that a full stagflation episode remains unlikely for the euro area, but the U.S. is markedly more vulnerable. Its analysis points to U.S. inflation remaining stuck above 3% and a higher reliance on external energy supplies as key risk factors . The core bind for policymakers is stark: lower rates to support growth and they risk unleashing another inflation surge; raise or hold rates to fight inflation and they risk tipping the economy into a recession.

Despite the gloom, some mitigating factors exist. JPMorgan analysts have also noted that global energy markets entered 2026 in a position of relative strength, with OPEC+ possessing spare capacity and U.S. shale production near record highs . However, Bloomberg Economics has warned that even if a Hormuz blockade is lifted, significant damage to regional energy facilities will take months to repair, meaning supply disruptions could persist long after the fighting stops . For now, the Goldilocks era is definitively over, replaced by a landscape of higher prices, slower growth, and deepening uncertainty.