The Strait of Hormuz closure was supposed to be the doomsday scenario for global energy markets. Roughly 20% of the world’s oil flows through that narrow waterway, and when the Iran war shut it down in early 2026, every energy analyst on the planet reached for the same playbook: the 1970s oil crisis.

That playbook turned out to be wrong. Or at least, dramatically incomplete.

The largest disruption that wasn’t the largest disaster

When US and Israeli military operations commenced in late February 2026, the immediate market reaction was predictable. Brent crude surged from roughly $71 per barrel to over $100. The International Energy Agency estimated shortfalls between 11 and 20 million barrels per day, and IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol called it the “greatest global energy security challenge in history.”

In terms of raw barrels removed from the market, this was the largest oil supply shock ever recorded. Bigger than the 1973 Arab oil embargo. Bigger than the 1979 Iranian Revolution disruption.

And yet, by mid-June 2026, oil prices had stabilized in the $70 to $80 range. That’s essentially where they started before the conflict began.

Ceasefire discussions and reports of agreements to reopen the strait emerged by mid-June, giving markets a timeline for normalization. Analysts cautioned that even with military operations potentially ending, the energy supply impacts would persist for months. Infrastructure damage, insurance premiums for tankers transiting the strait, and reconfigured supply chains don’t snap back overnight.

Bitcoin miners took the hit first

For the crypto market, the energy shock created an immediate and measurable impact on Bitcoin’s mining infrastructure. Bitcoin’s hash rate dropped approximately 8% in a single week as energy costs surged across regions dependent on fossil fuel generation.

That 8% decline represented roughly 8 to 10% of global Bitcoin mining infrastructure being forced offline or throttled. Miners operating on thin margins in energy-sensitive regions, particularly those reliant on natural gas or oil-derived power, simply couldn’t absorb the cost increase.

The hash rate decline triggered notable price volatility for Bitcoin itself. Bitcoin showed relative resilience compared to traditional assets during certain periods of the crisis. Trading volumes on platforms like Hyperliquid increased during the disruption, as traders sought alternatives when traditional market infrastructure experienced strain.

What this means for investors navigating energy-crypto crosswinds

The connection runs primarily through mining economics. When energy prices spike, mining profitability drops, hash rate declines, and sell pressure changes. But the demand side of Bitcoin can simultaneously increase during geopolitical crises.

The broader lesson is that energy crises now have a direct transmission mechanism into crypto markets. Bitcoin mining consumes enough global electricity that any major disruption to energy supply chains will show up in hash rate data within days, not weeks.