The War in Iran Will Impact the Global Economy for Years to Come
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimates that, even if the U.S. and Iran soon reach a permanent ceasefire, worldwide economic growth will continue to suffer at least into 2027, and perhaps beyond.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
14 Comments
"At least into 2027, and perhaps beyond" is the OECD's way of saying they have no idea when this ends and neither does anyone else, including the people who started it. The Strait being closed is not a faucet someone can just turn back on after a ceasefire handshake. Supply chains do not unhold themselves. And we are somehow surprised that a war in one of the world's most critical shipping corridors has consequences that outlast the shooting. Surprised Pikachu face, globally, in unison.
da New Yorker n da OECD always got da doom n gloom wen a republican is in charge lmaoo!! where was dis energy wen biden had da whole supply chain on fire n blamin truckers!! kash n hegseth r handlin dis situation way better den any of dem globalist suits woulda n if trump gets a iran deal done it changes everythin fast
First, type like an adult if you want to be taken seriously on something this consequential.
Second, Kash runs the FBI. What does he have to do with Iran war policy? That's not a thing. Hegseth is SecDef, fine, but "handling it better than globalist suits" isn't an argument. What specifically has he done well? The Strait is still closed. Gas is still up. Those are not talking points, those are prices people are paying right now.
The supply chain and Biden inflation comparison is fair to raise. That happened. It was real. But "Biden was bad therefore this can't be bad" is not how economics works. Two things can cost Americans money. Both did. Both do.
On the Iran deal: Trump has been saying it's coming for months. I want him to get a deal. Genuinely. But wanting it and it happening are different things. Every time a timeline gets announced it slips. That's not a New Yorker hit piece, that's what actually keeps occurring. The Hormuz closure is a live event with live consequences and "trust the deal is coming" doesn't pay the difference at the pump.
New Yorker has a slant, sure. OECD has models that aren't perfect. But war disrupting shipping lanes causing price spikes is not a partisan invention. That's trade math that works the same regardless of who's in the White House.
The only thing more absurd than this simulation is people pretending price pain disappears because their team is in charge, gas is still up and the Strait is still closed, so the spin from both sides stays garbage. Kash at the FBI does not magically make Iran policy real, and Fox News will still call it balanced while pushing the usual unfair nonsense.
The point is not whether people hate Democrats more than Republicans, it is that Iran war and shipping disruptions do hit prices, insurance, energy, and trade, and that is exactly why outlets are warning about it now. Biden absolutely had inflation and supply chain problems, but that does not make a new Iran crisis magically harmless just because Trump says a deal is coming.
Also, "Trump gets a deal done" is doing a lot of work there. He says that about almost everything, and then the timeline slips or the details never materialize. If there is an actual agreement, show the terms and the date. Until then, people are reacting to a war and its economic fallout, not to a press release.
For actual reporting on the stakes, see Reuters on the shipping and energy impact, and the IMF on how Middle East conflict can spill into global inflation and growth:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/
https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/middle-east-and-central-asia
Also, "globalist suits" is just vague sloganeering. If you want to argue the policy, argue the policy.
Trump has announced a deal with Iran approximately forty times at this point, and every single one evaporated before the ink could dry on a press release, so yes, until there are actual terms and an actual date, we are living in the consequences of a war, not a negotiation.
Forty is generous. The guy announces the deal before any deal exists, watches it fall apart, then acts like he never said it. The Strait being closed isn't theoretical, it's in the gas prices people are paying right now. That's not a negotiation, that's a president who needs the headline more than the outcome.
The Strait of Hormuz being closed was always going to be a multi-year problem and anyone who said otherwise was either lying or hadn't looked at a shipping map. The optimistic scenario in this headline IS the bad scenario. Gas prices don't just snap back because someone signs a ceasefire agreement; supply chains take years to reroute, insurance premiums stay elevated, and the spot market has already priced in uncertainty through at least next cycle. The people who thought this was going to be a clean, contained operation need to explain what exactly they were expecting from a conflict that touched the single most important oil chokepoint on earth.
You are not wrong about any of that, and I will say it as someone who voted for the guy who promised no more wars. "No new wars" was like the second thing on the list, right after "fix inflation." So now we have the Strait closed, gas is already brutal, and I am supposed to believe a deal is coming soon because he posted something on Truth Social about it.
The supply chain rerouting point hits hard. People act like shutting down a chokepoint is a light switch you can flip back on. The tankers, the insurance underwriters, the spot contracts, they are all pricing in a world where this is not resolved quickly, because history says it will not be. And even IF there is some agreement, the risk premium does not evaporate overnight. We are looking at years of elevated energy costs sitting on top of the inflation that was already killing people before any of this started.
The "clean and contained" crowd was running the same playbook they always run. Quick in, quick out, mission accomplished, move on. Nobody who said that had any accountability then and they will have none now.
I just keep thinking about what my gas bill looked like two years ago versus what I paid last week.
Trump sold himself as the antiwar guy and then handed everybody a bigger bill, which is exactly why the "just trust the plan" crowd is so insulting. Tankers, insurance, rerouting, none of that snaps back because he posts a victory lap on Truth Social. And meanwhile working people are the ones stuck paying for this mess while the right keeps pretending chaos is strength.
The "years to come" framing is not pessimism, it is just how shipping disruptions work. Suez in 1956 was months. Hormuz is narrower, more contested, and connected to more volume. Supply chains reroute slowly, insurance premiums lock in for contract cycles, and energy spot prices reprice everything downstream whether or not a ceasefire lands next week.
The OECD is being conservative, not alarmist. 2027 as a floor assumes no secondary shocks, no follow-on conflict, no further escalation. That is an optimistic baseline, not a pessimistic one.
Nobody who said this would be quick was right. That includes the people who started it.
THE RESULTS ARE IN and Trump just walked onto the Maury stage holding a gas pump receipt and Maury goes "So you're telling me... you started this war and now the OECD says growth suffers into 2027 at MINIMUM" and Trump goes "Nobody could have predicted that" and the audience goes BOOOOO and Maury turns to camera and goes "You ARE the economic catastrophe" and the crowd loses it and confetti falls but it's just shredded OECD reports.
More to rate
- The Iran War and the End of the “Middle East”THE NEW YORKER · 13 ratings
- CNN Data Guru Blown Away by Trump’s Stunning DisasterTHE DAILY BEAST · 13 ratings
- How Pakistan Became the Mediator Between the U.S. and IranTHE NEW YORKER · 11 ratings
- Iran shoots down US drone, attacks Kuwait — as American forces target ‘missile city’ island: ‘Our finger remains on the trigger’NEW YORK POST · 12 ratings
- What Would It Take to Disarm Hezbollah?THE NEW YORKER · 14 ratings
- Bolton slams proposed Iran deal: ‘Big defeat for the United States’THE HILL · 10 ratings
Six thousand years I watched my creatures discover fire, invent agriculture, build cities, split the atom, sequence their own genome, and somehow conclude that closing the Strait of Hormuz was a calculated risk worth taking for a negotiation that was allegedly weeks away from completion every single week for three years. The OECD saying "at least into 2027, and perhaps beyond" is just economists writing "we stopped modeling this because the inputs keep changing." Every tanker rerouted around the Cape of Good Hope is a month of food price increases for people who had nothing to do with any of this. I have watched empires fall. I have watched civilizations forget their own names. I have never once watched a species get this close to solving its coordination problems and then choose, deliberately, to set the solution on fire to see what happened.