The war between the United States and Iran has delivered the kind of stagflationary shock that central bankers most dread: energy prices rising fast enough to reignite inflation while simultaneously squeezing household incomes and corporate margins.
Central banks that had been cautiously signalling rate cuts are now publicly sounding the alarm. Reuters reported this week that policymakers are bracing for faster inflation as the energy shock proves persistent rather than transitory, with Axios noting conditions are getting worse, not better. Government bonds have sold off sharply, with the Financial Times describing the situation as a 'perfect storm' for fixed income markets.
The Reserve Bank of Australia moved first among major central banks, raising rates in what Bloomberg characterised as the Iran war forcing the first central bank's hand. The move signals that at least one institution has concluded the inflation risk outweighs the growth cost of tightening.
For the Federal Reserve and its European counterparts the calculus is harder. Politico, citing multiple policymakers, reported that the war has effectively suspended conventional forward guidance, with one official quoted as saying 'all bets are off.' The tension is acute in Europe, where the region faces both the energy shock and a weaker growth outlook than the US, a combination MarketWatch described as turning into a market nightmare.
Oil markets are pricing in a prolonged disruption. The rate repricing is now historic in scale: Reuters described this week as a 'G4 central bank week' defined by an oil shock-driven reassessment of the global rate path, a shift with direct implications for equity valuations, credit spreads, and sovereign borrowing costs.
The core problem for central banks is that the standard toolkit assumes they are fighting one enemy at a time. A war-driven supply shock lifts prices while depressing activity, meaning rate rises address inflation but deepen the slowdown, while cuts support growth but entrench higher prices. With no clear resolution to the conflict in sight, policymakers appear to be choosing between bad options rather than managing toward a soft landing.


