What Trump's Strikes on Iran Mean for Gas Prices As Oil Costs Surge
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Amid the conflict between Israel and Iran, oil prices have been surging, and after President Donald Trump announced on Saturday the U.S. would be joining the attack on Iran's nuclear sites, concern has been raised over what this means for gas prices in America.
The U.S. dropped bombs on Iran's three main nuclear sites on Saturday night—Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan—escalating fears of an expansion of the Middle Eastern conflict that could throw the oil market into turmoil.
With much of the West already seeing spikes in costs, further increases could be looming as the conflict continues.
Why It Matters
After the U.S. attack, the Iran's reaction will reveal whether the conflict could develop into a major regional or even international conflict.
Iran may retaliate against U.S. forces in the region, cut off a global oil supply route or try to accelerate its nuclear program. Although, Trump has warned of further military action if Tehran does not now decide to make peace.
File photo: Fuel prices on a fuel pump at a Mobil gas station.
File photo: Fuel prices on a fuel pump at a Mobil gas station.
Aaron M. Sprecher/AP
What To Know
In the past week, Brent Crude oil stocks have already jumped 11 percent since Israel attacked Iran and is expected to continue rising on Monday, according to Emirati newspaper Gulf News, although prices have been fluctuating.
The oil market had stabilized on Friday, according to Reuters, after the U.S. imposed new Iran-related sanctions, which fueled hopes that a negotiated agreement could be made between the two countries.
That relief in the market was only temporary as after Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil chokepoint, in response to the U.S. strikes.
Fears that Iran could attack U.S. oil infrastructure in the region, and levy its power over the Straits of Hormuz could "combine to make prices and speculation rise about the security and dependability of supply," Greg Kennedy, director of the Economic Conflict and Competition Research Group at King's College London told Newsweek.
"Lack of clarity of how long this condition will last will also lead to hoarding or preemptive purchasing by other nations, so there are competition supply fears that will drive up prices," he added.
Reflecting on the knock-on effect this would have on U.S. gas prices, Kennedy said that in the long term, the conflict "will most certainly see energy prices go up at the pumps."
"This is not an act that just stays in the Gulf region, it has wider global strategic ripples," he said.
Kennedy said that higher oil prices could also mean that Russia is able to gain more money—oil from the Urals region has already increased by 26 percent in the past month. "This is making war in Ukraine last longer now as well as it gives [President Vladimir] Putin both political and economic ammunition to continue his war efforts and avoid the need for peace talks."
What People Are Saying
Greg Kennedy, director of the Economic Conflict and Competition Research Group at King's College London told Newsweek: "The overall impact of actions that make the world look even less safe than it was previously was is always a cost to the civilian sector and society as a whole."
What Happens Next
As the conflict, and its repercussions, continue to unfold in the next few days, it will become more clear how significant the prices hikes will be.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oil to open higher as US strikes on Iran boost supply risk premium
By Seher Dareen LONDON (Reuters) -Oil is likely to rise by $3-5 per barrel when trading resumes on Sunday evening after the U.S. attacked Iran at the weekend, market analysts said, with gains expected to accelerate only if Iran retaliates hard and causes a major oil supply disruption. U.S. President Donald Trump said he had "obliterated" Iran's main nuclear sites in strikes overnight, joining an Israeli assault in an escalation of conflict in the Middle East as Tehran vowed to defend itself. Iran is OPEC's third-largest crude producer. Global oil benchmark Brent crude could gain $3 to $5 per barrel when markets open, SEB analyst Ole Hvalbye said in a note. Brent settled at $77.01 a barrel on Friday and U.S. West Texas Intermediate at $73.84. "An oil price jump is expected," said Jorge Leon, head of geopolitical analysis at Rystad and a former OPEC official. "Even in the absence of immediate retaliation, markets are likely to price in a higher geopolitical risk premium." Crude had settled down on Friday after the U.S. imposed fresh Iran-related sanctions, including on two entities based in Hong Kong, and counter-terrorism-related sanctions, according to a notice posted to the U.S. Treasury Department website. Brent has risen 11% while WTI has gained around 10% since the conflict began on June 13 with Israel targeting Iran's nuclear sites and Iranian missiles hitting buildings in Tel Aviv. Currently stable supply conditions and the availability of spare production capacity among other OPEC members have limited oil's gains. Risk premiums have typically faded when no supply disruptions occurred, said Giovanni Staunovo, analyst at UBS. "The direction of oil prices from here will depend on whether there are supply disruptions - which would likely result in higher prices - or if there is a de-escalation in the conflict, resulting in a fading risk premium," he said. A senior Iranian lawmaker on June 19 said that the country could shut the Strait of Hormuz as a way of hitting back against its enemies, though a second member of parliament said this would only happen if Tehran's vital interests were endangered. About a fifth of the world's total oil consumption passes through the strait. SEB said that any closure of the strait or spillover into other regional producers would "significantly lift" oil prices, but said they saw this scenario as a tail risk rather than a base case given China's reliance on Gulf crude. Ajay Parmar, oil and energy transition analytics director at consultancy ICIS, said it was unlikely Iran would be able to enforce a blockage of the strait for too long. "Most of Iran's oil exports to China pass through this strait and Trump is unlikely to tolerate the inevitable subsequent oil price spike for too long - the diplomatic pressure from the world's two largest economies would also be significant," he said.
Newsweek
33 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's SNAP Benefit Cut Plans Suffer Blow
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A plan by Republicans to shift a portion of federal food stamp costs to state governments suffered a major setback after the Senate parliamentarian found it would violate chamber rules. Why It Matters The blocked provision was an attempt to reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), affecting more than 40 million low-income Americans who rely on food aid. The shift would have transferred major SNAP costs to the states, requiring them to pay at least 5 percent—and potentially more—of benefit costs, which analysts warned could result in significant cuts to nutrition support. The parliamentarian's decision places additional pressure on the bill's champions to find alternative means to fund tax cuts without imperiling food assistance, Medicaid, or other federal support programs. What To Know The provision, a cornerstone of Republican efforts to offset the costs of President Donald Trump's multitrillion-dollar tax and spending legislation, has been ruled inadmissible under Senate rules, sending GOP leaders scrambling to revise the mega bill. The ruling, issued by Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, came as the package prepared for a vote. While her opinions are advisory, they are rarely ignored in lawmaking practice. Republican lawmakers are now searching for new savings as they continue to advance Trump's legislative priorities despite the setback. Activists with the Poor People's Campaign protest against spending reductions across Medicaid, food stamps and federal aid in President Donald Trump's spending and tax bill being worked on by Senate Republicans this week, outside the... Activists with the Poor People's Campaign protest against spending reductions across Medicaid, food stamps and federal aid in President Donald Trump's spending and tax bill being worked on by Senate Republicans this week, outside the Supreme Court in Washington D.C. on Monday, June 2, 2025. More J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo Parliamentarian Ruling and Byrd Rule Compliance MacDonough declared the SNAP cost-sharing plan noncompliant with the chamber's budget reconciliation rules, specifically the Byrd Rule, which bars certain policy measures from being attached to budget bills. The proposal would have shifted billions of dollars in SNAP costs from the federal government to the states, creating a new fiscal obligation for state governments and threatening coverage for millions. House Passes Bill with GOP SNAP Cuts The House passed the broader tax and spending package along party lines in May 2025, including a provision to require states to fund at least 5 percent of SNAP benefits and more for high error rates. The House-passed measure's SNAP provision was projected to save about $128 billion. Republican leaders had hoped these savings would help offset the bill's $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and new spending. Other Key Provisions Beyond SNAP, the package includes an extension and expansion of individual and business tax cuts, new work requirements for Medicaid recipients, cuts to federal health and nutrition programs, increased military and border security funding, and the elimination of taxes on tips for service workers. GOP Paths Forward Republican leaders, including Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman of Arkansas, said they were exploring options to keep the legislation on track while still delivering savings elsewhere. Options range from modifying the disputed SNAP provision to removing it entirely or risking a procedural vote requiring 60 votes—an unlikely scenario in the current Senate. Impact on SNAP Recipients The plan would have expanded work requirements to older adults (up to age 65), a component that remains in the bill for now. Democrats and anti-hunger advocates warned of significant harm to those in need, with more than 3 million individuals projected to lose food stamp access based on Congressional Budget Office estimates. Additional Rulings Expected The Senate parliamentarian is also expected to rule on other elements in the bill, including limits on immigrant eligibility for nutrition aid and changes to federal agencies, with further decisions likely to shape the final legislation. What People Are Saying Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, said: "We will keep fighting to protect families in need," opposing shifts in SNAP costs to states, which she said would result in significant benefit cuts. Arkansas Senator John Boozman, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said Republicans are "exploring options" to comply with Senate rules, while supporting those reliant on SNAP. What Happens Next Senate Republicans are expected to revise the bill to comply with the parliamentarian's rulings or drop the contested SNAP provisions. Further decisions from the adviser on other elements of the megabill are anticipated before any final Senate vote. This article contains reporting from The Associated Press.
Bloomberg
37 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Hard-Hitting World Leaves EU Soft Power Stranded
Last week, with uncertainty raging over whether the US would join Israel in striking Iran, Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto delivered an elegy for a soft-power Europe that looked stranded in a hard-power world. 'We talk about Europe as if Europe counted for something,' he said. 'But its time is over, and I say it with sadness.' It turned out to be a fitting prelude to the weekend's events as Europe's last-ditch push for diplomacy with Tehran ended with American bombers striking Iranian nuclear sites. It speaks to wider anxiety over Europe's geopolitical future as drones and missiles continue to pound Ukraine, tensions rise in the Taiwan strait and the Middle East erupts. Yes, the combination of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump has finally stung the European Union out of complacency, with the prospect of rearmament projects worth €800 billion ($920 billion) sending share prices soaring and industrial capacity whirring into life. German weapons maker Rheinmetall AG, for example, is outperforming tech darling Nvidia Corp. and taking Gucci parent Kering SA's place on the Euro Stoxx 50 index. Yet at the same time, we're a long way from a European defense worthy of the name.
