The war in the Middle East is reshaping the global market landscape, yet many investors have not fully grasped the depth and persistence of this crisis. Citadel Securities analyst Nohshad Shah warns in a recent report that the magnitude of this geopolitical shock is sufficient to divert global growth and inflation trajectories from their established paths. He cautions that the market's inertial "buy-the-dip" mentality is significantly underestimating the consequences of a prolonged energy price shock. His core advice is succinct: "Track armies, not Twitter."
Shah points out that recent military developments—including the latest US announcement of deploying up to 10,000 additional troops to the region, continued drone and missile attacks by Iran, and threats to the Strait of Mandeb by Houthi forces—all indicate the conflict remains deeply entrenched in an escalation trap with no signs of abating.
For markets, the impact of this crisis is beginning to shift from an inflation shock to a growth risk. Shah's analysis reveals that during the initial phase of the conflict (February 27 to March 25), interest rates and the US dollar contributed to 56% of the tightening in financial conditions. Recently, this structure has reversed, with risk assets now driving 61% of the tightening, a figure that spiked to 78% during intraday trading last Friday. This signals that the market's pricing focus is transitioning from an inflation narrative to a growth narrative, potentially re-establishing bonds' role as a hedge for risk assets.
Shah characterizes the current situation as a "classic escalation trap"—where each side escalates, expecting the final round of pressure to force the other to concede. However, each escalation is interpreted by the other as an act of aggression, triggering larger countermeasures and a continuous rise in the intensity of violence, ultimately surpassing the strategic benefits originally sought from the war.
The Strait of Hormuz is a critical chokepoint for global energy trade, and its effective control by Iran is unacceptable to the United States and most other nations. Concurrently, the Iranian regime is unlikely to accept any ceasefire proposal from the US without security guarantees. Shah believes this structural dilemma makes a near-term resolution to the conflict unlikely.
He emphasizes that this crisis is fundamentally different from last year's tariff shocks, which were unilateral and financial in nature. The current damage to physical energy infrastructure and global trade supply chains could take months or even years to repair.
Shah notes that the conflict poses a significant challenge for central banks, representing a fundamental shift in the policy narrative compared to the pre-conflict era. The current macroeconomic backdrop is starkly different from 2022: policy rates start from a higher level, there is no post-pandemic reopening demand surge, excess savings are largely depleted, and globally coordinated fiscal stimulus is unlikely. In this context, the real risk is a severe hit to growth coupled with persistently rising inflation—that is, stagflation.
Markets are currently pricing in nearly three rate hikes this year for both the European Central Bank and the Bank of England, while the Federal Reserve is expected to pause its rate-cutting cycle. However, Shah warns that if central banks are forced to hike rates aggressively to curb an inflation-expectations spiral, it could exacerbate economic and financial stress, creating highly uncertain secondary effects. His conclusion is that, regardless of the scenario—whether central banks tighten proactively or an energy shock drags growth down passively—demand destruction will occur as long as the war continues.
Shah highlights a unique vulnerability for the AI theme in this crisis, as its core pillar is energy. Damage to physical infrastructure, rising premiums for reliable electricity, security risks for data centers in the Middle East, helium shortages, and broader supply chain disruptions collectively pose multiple pressures on the AI investment narrative. He states clearly, "We are not out of the woods yet."
Shah also observes extreme readings in stock-bond correlation—the 21-day rolling correlation coefficient recently touched -0.95 (stocks down, bonds down, meaning yields up). Such extreme values have historically often signaled turning points in macroeconomic regimes.
As growth concerns increasingly dominate market pricing, Shah has clearly adjusted his previous stance. He states that while he was previously inclined to be bullish on yields, as the market was broadly shorting inflation tail risks, current valuations have adjusted to a new level. The feedback loop from rising energy prices to weaker growth has become more substantive. In this context, long-duration fixed-income assets should begin to reassert their hedging function against risk assets.
Comments