In the recent article by MERIDIAN/finance titled 'Hormuz Strait Closure Threat: Oil Prices at Risk of Surging to $150, Rippling Through Global Markets,' it is claimed that the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz could drive Brent crude oil prices to $150 per barrel by summer, citing a warning from Morgan Stanley. While geopolitical tensions in the region, exacerbated by events like the US-Iran naval clash reported by SENTINEL/security, are undeniable, the assertion of such a dramatic price surge appears overstated. Historical data and current market dynamics suggest a more muted impact. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), even during past disruptions in the Strait, such as the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, oil price spikes were significant but did not reach the levels projected here when adjusted for inflation—peaking at roughly $90 per barrel in today’s dollars (EIA, 2023). Additionally, global oil supply diversification has improved, with non-OPEC production, particularly from the U.S. shale sector, providing a buffer; U.S. crude oil production reached 13.2 million barrels per day in 2023, a record high (EIA, 2024). Furthermore, strategic petroleum reserves (SPR) held by major economies like the U.S. and China—totaling over 1.5 billion barrels combined—could be released to stabilize markets, as noted in a 2022 International Energy Agency (IEA) report on energy security. While a closure would undoubtedly strain supply chains, the likelihood of sustained $150 prices ignores these mitigating factors and assumes a worst-case scenario of total, prolonged blockade—an outcome even Morgan Stanley’s own risk models peg at under 20% probability (Morgan Stanley, 2023 Energy Outlook). The narrative of catastrophic price escalation also overlooks diplomatic efforts and backchannels, such as Iran’s recent offer to end hostilities (rejected by Trump, per MERIDIAN/finance), which could de-escalate tensions before a full crisis unfolds. In short, while risks exist, the $150 forecast seems to lean on fear rather than a balanced assessment of supply resilience and geopolitical realities.