Oil prices edge higher as investors assess Iran-Israel ceasefire
Oil prices
edged higher on Wednesday, finding some respite after plummeting in the last two sessions, as investors assessed the stability of a ceasefire between Iran and Israel.
Brent crude futures
rose 75 cents, or 1.1 per cent, to $67.89 a barrel. US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude gained 71 cents, or 1.1 per cent, to $65.08.
Brent settled on Tuesday at its lowest since June 10 and WTI since June 5, both before Israel launched a surprise attack on key Iranian military and nuclear facilities on June 13.
Prices had rallied to five-month highs after the US attacked Iran's nuclear facilities over the weekend.
US airstrikes did not destroy Iran's nuclear capability and only set it back by a few months, according to a preliminary US intelligence assessment, as a shaky ceasefire brokered by US President Donald Trump took hold between Iran and Israel.
Earlier on Tuesday, both Iran and Israel signaled that the air war between the two nations had ended, at least for now, after Trump publicly scolded them for violating a ceasefire.
As the two countries lifted civilian restrictions after 12 days of war - which the US joined with an attack on Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities - each sought to claim victory.
Direct US involvement in the war had investors worried about the
Strait of Hormuz
, a narrow waterway between Iran and Oman, through which between 18 million and 19 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil and fuel flow, nearly a fifth of global consumption.
Investors awaited US government data on domestic crude and fuel stockpiles due on Wednesday. US crude fell by 4.23 million barrels in the week ended June 20, market sources said, citing American Petroleum Institute figures on Tuesday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
21 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Israel, Iran and the right to have nuclear weapons
When the US warplanes struck three of Iran's main nuclear sites — Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow — President Trump claimed that 'Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.' A Pentagon report, however, suggests that the strikes likely only set back Iran's nuclear program by a few months. Nevertheless, the events of the past few days invoke a long-standing and deeply unsettling question: Why are some nations trusted with nuclear weapons while others are condemned merely for aspiring to acquire them? Israel has defended its military actions as a necessary pre-emptive response to an existential threat, alleging that Iran is dangerously close to acquiring nuclear capability. For over 30 years, Netanyahu has repeatedly warned that Iran is on the brink of making nuclear weapons, despite assessments by the US and the International Atomic Energy Agency confirming that Tehran halted its weapons programme in 2003. Even the US Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified in March that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons and has not revived the programme suspended in 2003. Her assessment echoes the 2003 fatwa by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, which declared nuclear arms forbidden under Islamic law. Nonetheless, President Trump has publicly dismissed the conclusions of his own intelligence agency, declaring bluntly, 'Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. We're not going to allow that.' Similarly, French President Emmanuel Macron has described Iran's nuclear programme as 'a threat to global security', reflecting persistent Western scepticism, often at odds with intelligence findings. The hypocrisy is astounding. While Iran faces scrutiny over its potential to develop nuclear weapons, Israel — estimated to possess between 80 and 90 nuclear warheads with the capacity to produce more — attracts little international attention and remains largely shielded from accountability. Although Tel Aviv is not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it faces no significant pressure to disclose or dismantle its nuclear arsenal. In contrast, Iran, as an NPT signatory, remains subject to international sanctions, regular inspections, and diplomatic pressure. This glaring double standard has not gone unnoticed. Noam Chomsky pointedly asked: 'Israel's nuclear arsenal is not regarded as a threat to peace, while Iran's nuclear programme — even without evidence of weaponisation — is treated as an existential danger. Why?' His question lays bare the geopolitical biases that shape nuclear discourse. It depends on who holds power and whom the West chooses to trust. Israel is frequently portrayed as a responsible and stable democracy, a stabilising force in a volatile regional environment. In contrast, Iran is commonly depicted as a revisionist state that supports non-state actors and challenges the existing international order. This perception has long shaped Western discourse and continues to fuel heightened scrutiny of Tehran's nuclear ambitions. This framing was starkly articulated in President George W Bush's 2002 'axis of evil' speech, in which he accused Iran of pursuing weapons of mass destruction and exporting terror — language that has continued to influence the selective application of non-proliferation norms and the broader securitisation of Iran's nuclear programme. This dichotomy — framing certain states as responsible and others as irresponsible — plays a significant role in the differential treatment of states and their nuclear capabilities. But such a framing is inherently subjective and shaped by geopolitical alignments and strategic interests, rather than being grounded in internationally accepted legal standards and ethical norms. Moreover, this narrative also overlooks Israel's own actions in the region. Israel has carried out repeated military interventions in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza, and its prolonged occupation of Palestinian territories has been declared illegal by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The International Criminal Court (ICC) has also issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes. How does Israel continue to be regarded as a responsible democracy when its actions repeatedly defy key international legal norms? How is its nuclear arsenal still considered safe despite its persistent refusal to acknowledge its very existence? What about its non-signatory status to the NPT, and its continued denial of access to IAEA inspectors, including at the Dimona reactor, long believed to be central to its nuclear weapons programme It seems the distinction lies not in the destructive capability of nuclear weapons, but in the identity of those who possess them. As political scientist Scott Sagan observes, 'It is not the bomb that is judged dangerous, but who holds it.' This differential treatment not only corrodes trust in the global nuclear order but also deepens resentment across the region, reinforcing Iran's strategic calculus to pursue nuclear deterrence. Unwavering Western backing for Israel's military dominance emboldens its assertiveness and law-defying conduct. If the global community is serious about peace and stability in West Asia, it must abandon this selective approach. As former IAEA chief Mohamed El Baradei warned: 'There is no moral authority without consistency.' The time has come to uphold a nuclear order based on fairness, not the West's favouritism. The writer teaches international law at Aligarh Muslim University and heads its Strategic and Security Studies Programme
Hindustan Times
23 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
US to hit Iran again? Trump makes major one word statement as he likens recent strikes to atomic bombing of Hiroshima
'Sure', stated President Donald Trump in response to a question about whether the US would launch another attack if Iran resumed its nuclear enrichment program. US' President Donald Trump meets with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte (not pictured) during the NATO summit of heads of state and government in The Hague on June 25, 2025. (Photo by Piroschka Van De Wouw / POOL / AFP)(AFP) Following the US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear installations, Trump stated on Wednesday that the information was ambiguous but that the damage caused may have been significant. 'The intelligence was very inconclusive. The intelligence says we don't know. It could've been very severe. That's what the intelligence suggests,' Trump told reporters before he spoke with global leaders at a NATO Summit. 'It was very severe. There was obliteration. Iran's nuclear program has been put back decades,' he continued. He went on to say that the Iran-Israel truce is proceeding well and that it was great win for everyone. Also Read: Laura Loomer claps back at Tucker Carlson for calling her 'world's creepiest human', mocks his 'Demon' attack claims Trump's strikes on Iran In his Saturday night speech to the nation following the operation, Trump declared that the United States fully demolished Iran's enrichment installations at Isfahan, Natanz and Fordow. 'The strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,' Trump asserted in his address from White House. In the US strikes on Iran's nuclear installations, B2 bombers dropped two GBU-57s on Natanz and twelve GBU-57s on Fordow. During a press briefing on Sunday, US military officials reported that a US naval submarine fired about 30 Tomahawk missiles on Isfahan. Trump compares US airstrikes on Iran with atomic bombing of Hiroshima Meanwhile, Trump compared the US attack on Iran to his nation's move to unleash atomic bombs on Japan during World War II. "They spent trillions of dollars trying to do this thing, and they didn't come up with it, and we're actually getting along with them very well right now," Trump stated during his speech in The Hague. 'But had we not succeeded with that hit? That hit ended the war. That hit ended the war. I don't want to use an example of Hiroshima, I don't want to use an example of Nagasaki, but that was essentially the same thing that ended that war. This ended that, this ended that war. If we didn't take that out, they would have been they'd be fighting right now.'
News18
28 minutes ago
- News18
Iran Passes Bill To Suspend Cooperation With International Atomic Energy Agency: Reports
Last Updated: The legislation aims to halt IAEA inspections and limit access to Iran's nuclear sites, signaling a significant step back from international nuclear oversight. Iran's parliament has reportedly approved a bill to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), several reports mentioned. The move comes amid escalating tensions following the recent conflict with Israel. The legislation aims to halt IAEA inspections and limit access to Iran's nuclear sites, signaling a significant step back from international nuclear oversight. This decision is seen as a direct response to the recent airstrikes targeting Iran's nuclear facilities and is likely to further strain relations with Western powers, raising concerns over the future of Iran's nuclear program and regional stability. US media reported on Tuesday that a classified intelligence assessment has concluded that the recent American strikes on Iran did not fully destroy the country's centrifuges or its stockpile of enriched uranium. According to reports, B-2 bombers targeted two of Iran's nuclear facilities using massive GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs, while a guided missile submarine launched Tomahawk cruise missiles at a third site. Following the strikes, President Donald Trump declared that the attacks had 'obliterated" the nuclear sites, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth asserted that the US military had 'devastated the Iranian nuclear program." However, a preliminary assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) suggests that while the bombings sealed off entrances to some of the facilities, they failed to destroy the underground structures themselves, US media reported, citing sources familiar with the classified findings. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has confirmed the assessment was authentic but said it was 'flat-out wrong and was classified as 'top secret' but was still leaked." 'The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran's nuclear programme," Leavitt posted on X.
