Barclays Maintains $100 Brent Oil Forecast, Says Iran Deal Won't Resolve Supply Issues
Miles Bennett
Brent crude has slipped below $80 a barrel, yet Barclays is sticking with a $100 target — while Citi, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley have all slashed forecasts. The split comes down to how fast the Strait of Hormuz actually reopens, and that will set oil's near-term direction.
Brent is below $80 — why is Barclays still calling $100?
Barclays analyst Amarpreet Singh argues that even if the Strait of Hormuz blockade — the chokepoint through which roughly one-fifth of global oil flows — lifts soon, rerouting ships, clearing logistics bottlenecks, and restarting production all take time.
This means → a signed deal ≠ immediate supply relief. Between paper peace and actual barrels, there is a "vacuum period" that keeps upward pressure on prices.
Barclays also flags the risk of renewed conflict — the deal's execution is itself uncertain.
Why is Citi on the opposite side?
Citi expects Hormuz trade flows to normalize faster than previously thought, projecting a return by mid-to-late July.
That drives steep cuts: Q3 $75/bbl, Q4 $70/bbl, 2027 $65/bbl — down from prior calls of $110, $90, and $80, respectively.
Citi draws a key distinction: the market is pricing in a memorandum of understanding (a preliminary intent), not a formal agreement that guarantees medium-term passage. In plain terms = if a binding deal actually lands, Brent could drop another $10–15/bbl.
Where do Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley stand?
Goldman cut its Q4 Brent forecast from $90 to $80 and its 2027 call from $80 to $75, expecting Persian Gulf exports to recover by end of July — a month earlier than its prior estimate.
Morgan Stanley sees Brent at roughly $80/bbl from Q4 onward, with tanker flows taking weeks to normalize: 50% of lost output back by September, 80% by December.
This means → Goldman and Morgan Stanley sit between Barclays and Citi — they accept recovery takes time, but not enough time to justify $100.
What is the demand-side worry?
Barclays itself concedes that about 60% of oil demand is tied to goods production and distribution, and a scenario where Brent drifts back to $80 by end-2027 is plausible.
Citi is blunter: once the conflict fades, markets will refocus on weak fundamentals, including a potential supply glut next year.
In plain terms = even if the short-term vacuum supports prices, the medium-term supply-demand picture is not encouraging — the bulls themselves have left an exit.
What is really driving the disagreement?
Every major bank is ultimately betting on two ends of the same variable: how fast physical Hormuz flows recover + how certain the deal's execution is.
Barclays bets "slow and uncertain" → $100. Citi bets "fast and likely" → $65–75. Goldman and Morgan Stanley split the middle → $75–80.
This reflects a market where oil-price forecasts depend more on geopolitical judgment than on traditional supply-demand models — whoever reads the politics of Hormuz more accurately will be closest to reality.
Content is for reference only, not financial advice.