logo
If Iran's oil is cut off, China will pay the price

If Iran's oil is cut off, China will pay the price

Mint5 hours ago

Israel hasn't attacked Iran's energy export hubs so far. If it does, China could find itself cut off from a flow of cheap oil.
Iran exports around 1.7 million barrels of crude a day, less than 2% of global demand. The U.S. reimposed sanctions on Tehran's oil exports in late 2018, a few months after President Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal during his first term.
Most countries won't touch Iran's sanctioned crude, so Tehran is forced to sell at a discount and find covert ways to get it onto the market. It uses a 'dark fleet" of tankers that sail with their transponders turned off to ship cargoes of oil.
More than 90% of Iran's oil exports now go to China, according to commodities data company Kpler. Most of it is bought by small Chinese 'teapot" refineries clustered in the Shandong region that operate independently from state-owned oil companies. They switched to illicit Iranian oil en masse in 2022 to protect their margins.
The discount on Iran's oil compared with a similar grade of non-sanctioned crude such as Oman Export Blend is currently around $2 a barrel, according to Tom Reed, vice president of China crude at commodity data provider Argus Media. The gap has narrowed recently because of worries that conflict with Israel and stricter enforcement of U.S. sanctions could disrupt Iranian supply. The discount has been wider in the past, averaging $11 in 2023 and $4 in 2024.
With few alternative buyers for Iranian oil, Chinese refineries have leverage. Last year, an official from Iran's Chamber of Commerce characterized the trading relationship as 'a colonial trap." As the sanctioned oil is paid for in renminbi rather than in dollars, Iran has few choices about where to spend its crude earnings except on Chinese goods, reinforcing its dependency on one country.
If Israel's goal is to seek regime change in Iran, it may feel tempted to cut off Tehran's oil funds. A strike on Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf, where most of Iran's tankers set sail from, would stop the bulk of the country's oil exports.
This would shock oil markets and could alienate the White House. Trump doesn't want to see Americans paying higher gasoline prices at the pump. But the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries Plus group of producers has a lot of spare capacity that could be returned to the market relatively quickly.
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates combined have more than four million barrels of oil a day on the sidelines. A Goldman Sachs analysis found that these two producers replaced around 80% of lost barrels within around six months in previous supply shocks.
This safety valve could ease tensions in the oil market if needed. But Iran's top customer would still feel the pinch if its energy exports are disrupted. For the first time in years, China's private refineries would have to pay full price for a barrel of oil.
Write to Carol Ryan at carol.ryan@wsj.com

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Federal judge slams Trump-era grant cancellations, citing racial bias and abuse of power
Federal judge slams Trump-era grant cancellations, citing racial bias and abuse of power

Time of India

time24 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Federal judge slams Trump-era grant cancellations, citing racial bias and abuse of power

Washington, June 17 (IANS) A federal judge in US city of Boston ruled that the Trump's administration's decision to terminate funding for diversity-related research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was illegal, accusing the administration of discriminating against minority groups. A dramatic federal courtroom scene has reignited a national reckoning over science, equity, and political interference. In a landmark ruling on Monday, US District Judge William Young condemned the Trump administration's abrupt termination of hundreds of federally funded research grants, many centered on diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI), and gender identity, as a breach of legal procedure and a veiled act of racial and LGBTQ+ discrimination. The verdict, delivered during a high-stakes hearing in Massachusetts, may reshape how governments are allowed to exercise discretion over scientific funding, and how far political ideology can intrude on public health research. A judicial blow to executive overreach Judge Young, appointed by President Ronald Reagan and widely respected for his legal gravitas, pulled no punches in his remarks. Describing the Trump administration's actions as 'arbitrary and capricious,' he rebuked federal officials for violating long-standing procedural norms in canceling research projects tied to DEI initiatives. 'It is palpably clear that what is behind this is racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community,' Young declared in court. 'After 40 years on the bench, I've never seen government racial discrimination like this. Have we no shame?' The ruling came in response to two lawsuits, now consolidated, filed earlier this year by 16 state attorneys general, advocacy groups, and several scientists whose research was defunded. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Order New Blinds Online & Get $199 Home Installation Learn More Undo These lawsuits allege that the government terminated projects not on scientific grounds but because they explored politically disfavored themes such as racial health disparities, sexual orientation, and social determinants of disease. The scope of the cancellations While Monday's ruling addresses only a subset of the cancelled grants, it sheds light on the breadth of the administration's actions. The terminated projects, many of them backed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), ranged from studies on Alzheimer's in Black communities and depression among LGBTQ+ youth to trials examining how medications respond differently in individuals from diverse genetic backgrounds. In court documents, plaintiffs argued that universities received impersonal, template-style termination notices that offered no detailed justification. Some of the research was already midstream, with patient data collected and lives potentially impacted by halted clinical trials. Government's defense meets judicial skepticism Despite mounting criticism, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees the NIH, stood by the cuts. In a written statement, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said to Associated Press: 'HHS stands by its decision to end funding for research that prioritized ideological agendas over scientific rigor and meaningful outcomes for the American people.' Yet during the hearing, government attorneys failed to provide a working definition of DEI—an omission Judge Young seized upon. He questioned how the NIH could justify grant cancellations on ideological grounds without articulating what exactly was objectionable. Justice Department lawyer Thomas Ports Jr. cited 13 minority health grants that were renewed or left intact to demonstrate the agency's commitment to diversity. He also claimed some cancellations were due to inadequate scientific value. However, Judge Young countered that such arguments masked a more troubling motive. Consequences and next steps Though Judge Young's remarks were forceful, the written order restoring the funding is pending and may still face appeals. The Trump administration has signaled it is 'exploring all legal options,' including asking for a stay or taking the case to a higher court. The implications are far-reaching. Legal scholars argue that this case may become a bellwether for how federal agencies define 'ideological' research and whether the government can be held accountable for politicizing science. It also raises deeper constitutional concerns over equal protection and viewpoint discrimination. Meanwhile, the ruling represents a partial but significant victory for scientists, public health advocates, and universities that have accused the federal government of undermining research in vulnerable populations. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.

224 civilians including women & children killed in Israeli strikes: Iran in India
224 civilians including women & children killed in Israeli strikes: Iran in India

Time of India

time30 minutes ago

  • Time of India

224 civilians including women & children killed in Israeli strikes: Iran in India

The Iranian Embassy in India published a report regarding the latest developments in the criminal military attack by the "Zionist Regime" on Iran and stated that 224 civilians, including women and children, have died, and 1,257 others have been injured so far in Israel's attacks on Iran. According to the Iranian embassy, "on 13th June 2025, the occupying and rogue Zionist regime flagrantly violated the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Iran by waging military attacks against several locations, including residential areas, killing innocent women and children." "As a result of these brutal military attacks, which are a clear violation of all international principles and regulations, 224 civilians, including women and children, have died, and 1,257 others have been injured so far," the statement added. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 大正製薬が赤字覚悟の本気!おなか脂肪対策がなんと定期初回税込540円! 大正製薬 今すぐ購入 Undo Further, the Embassy stated that the "Zionist regime's unlawful military attacks on Iran constitute a flagrant violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and are blatant acts of aggression against Iran. In accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, Iran reserves its legitimate and legal rights to respond properly and timely to these aggressions." "The Zionist Regime started military attacks while Iran was demonstrating its respect for international law by engaging in indirect negotiations with the US in order to settle the disputes, including the nuclear issues," it added. Live Events Urging all justice-advocating member states of the United Nations to condemn these criminal aggressions, the Embassy asked to take "urgent and collective measures to stop this reckless adventurism, which has undeniably placed global peace and security under unprecedented threats." "The grave and far-reaching consequences of the Zionist regime's aggressions against Iran will rest entirely upon this regime and its supporters. The genocidal Zionist regime developed nuclear weapons without being responsive to any international community, including the IAEA," the statement noted. According to the Iranian Embassy, it is the sheer hypocrisy that a genocidal Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) nuclear entity accuses an NPT member of threatening global security and attacks its nuclear establishments and systematically assassinates its scientists and university professors. Explaining the reason for retaliatory response, the embassy affirmed, "The Armed Forces of Iran, in response to those brutal military attacks and on the basis of the international principle of self-defence, have launched retaliatory operations, targeting the military facilities of the Israeli regime." Iranian Embassy emphasised that the "Expansionist Zionist regime is the main cause of instability and war in the West Asia region. This regime permanently invades its neighbours and violates their sovereignty and territorial integrity."

G7 leaders call for de-escalation but insist Iran must not get nuclear weapon
G7 leaders call for de-escalation but insist Iran must not get nuclear weapon

The Hindu

time30 minutes ago

  • The Hindu

G7 leaders call for de-escalation but insist Iran must not get nuclear weapon

Leaders of the Group of Seven countries meeting in Canada signed a joint statement calling for de-escalation of fighting between Israel and Iran while reaffirming that Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear bomb. Also read: G7 summit highlights on June 17, 2025 The statement reads: 'We, the leaders of the G7, reiterate our commitment to peace and stability in the Middle East. In this context, we affirm that Israel has a right to defend itself. We reiterate our support for the security of Israel. We also affirm the importance of the protection of civilians. Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror. We have been consistently clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.' 'We urge that the resolution of the Iranian crisis leads to a broader de-escalation of hostilities in the Middle East, including a ceasefire in Gaza. We will remain vigilant to the implications for international energy markets and stand ready to coordinate, including with like-minded partners, to safeguard market stability,' added in the statement.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store