Trump calls for producers to pump more oil amid Iran shipping lane fears
Mr Trump urged stepped-up production as the White House sharpened its warnings to Iran against closing the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil and gas shipping lane, in retaliation for the US strikes on Iran's nuclear programme.
'To the Department of Energy: DRILL, BABY, DRILL!!! And I mean NOW!!!' Mr Trump posted on social media.
He added: 'EVERYONE, KEEP OIL PRICES DOWN. I'M WATCHING! YOU'RE PLAYING RIGHT INTO THE HANDS OF THE ENEMY. DON'T DO IT!'
The push by Mr Trump comes at an uncertain moment as US embassies and military installations in the Middle East are on high alert for potential retaliation.
Global markets are trying to ascertain what lays ahead after the US struck key Iranian nuclear facilities with a barrage of 30,000-pound bunker busting bombs and Tomahawk missiles.
Iran's parliament has approved cutting off the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow shipping lane in the Persian Gulf that about 20% of global oil and gas passes through.
It is now up to Iran's national security council to decide whether to move forward with the idea, which could lead to a spike in the cost of goods and services worldwide.
The price of oil jumped 4% shortly after trading began on Sunday night, but it quickly pared back as the focus shifted from what the US military did to how Iran would react.
Oil futures were flip-flopping in Monday morning trading between gains and losses. They still remain higher than they were before the fighting began a little more than a week ago.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt warned Tehran anew against closing the strait, saying 'the Iranian regime would be foolish to make that decision'.
The State Department has doubled the number of emergency evacuation flights it is providing for American citizens wishing to leave Israel, and ordered the departure of nonessential staff from the US Embassy in Lebanon.
It also is stepping up travel warnings around the Middle East because of concerns Iran will retaliate against US interests in the region.
In an alert sent to all Americans worldwide and posted to its website on Sunday, the State Department warned all US citizens abroad to exercise caution.
The US Embassy in Qatar issued an alert on its website on Monday urging American citizens in the energy-rich nation to 'shelter in place until further notice'.
Hours later, the Qatari government issued an extraordinary order to shut its busy airspace.
Qatar, across the Persian Gulf from Iran, is home to Al Udeid Air Base, which hosts the forward headquarters of the US military's Central Command.
Many energy industry analysts are sceptical that Iran would go forward with a full closure of the strait, something that it has threatened to do in the past.
Iran would face the possibility of retaliation against its own shipments and the possibility that the move would upset China, the biggest purchaser of Iranian crude.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
35 minutes ago
- BBC News
Did President Trump have legal authority to launch Iran strikes?
Since US President Donald Trump ordered strikes on several nuclear facilities in Iran over the weekend, Democrats as well as lawmakers from his own party have questioned his authority to do Congressman Thomas Massie said on X that the strikes were "not Constitutional", and another Republican Congressman Warren Davidson wrote "it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional".But Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson defended the president, saying he "evaluated that the imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act" and that there's "tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties".BBC Verify has asked legal experts whether Trump's actions were in line with the Constitution or whether he should have consulted Congress first. What does the Constitution say about military action? There are two parts of the US Constitution that are relevant here: Article I and Article I specifically lists the ability "to declare war" as one of Congress' Article II - which lays out the president's powers - says that "the president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army", and sources at the White House have told the BBC they see this as the rationale for the strikes on experts have said that Article II could be interpreted as giving the president the authority to use military force in certain circumstances aren't specifically laid out in the Constitution - but they have been subsequently interpreted to include "actual or anticipated attacks," or to "advance other important national interests" according to experts at the Council for Foreign interests could include the prevention of nuclear proliferation - which Trump administration said was their justification for the strikes on constitutional experts told BBC Verify that Trump had some authority under these circumstances to order the military strikes on Iran."The short answer is yes, he did have the authority here," says Claire Finkelstein, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. "There is a long standing practice of presidents engaging in isolated military engagements without congressional approval." Another constitutional law expert, Jessica Levinson at Loyola Marymount University, said the president has limited authority to authorise air strikes as long as it "doesn't begin to resemble a war, and there is no clear definition of when that occurs".However, Andrew Rudalevige, a professor of government at Bowdoin College, told BBC Verify he didn't believe Trump had the authority to launch the latest strikes as there wasn't a sudden attack to Article I gives Congress the power to declare war, the provision has rarely been last time Congress evoked this power was in 1942 after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor during the Second World War. Before this point it had been used on just 10 occasions since experts also told us that presidents using their authority to order military actions without getting approval from Congress has become more Bellinger, who was a legal adviser in the White House under President George W Bush, said: "Over the last several decades, Congress has acquiesced more and more in presidential uses of military force for a variety of purposes without congressional authorisation.""Congress and the courts have effectively negated the requirement of a declaration," Jonathan Turley, a conservative constitutional expert, told BBC Verify. What have other presidents done? President Barack Obama authorised airstrikes in Libya without requesting permission from Congress, which his administration justified under Article II, as was the case for the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan in during Trump's first term in office, he ordered the killing of Iranian military officer Qasem Soleimani without congressional President Bill Clinton launched strikes in the Balkans in the 1990s without prior approval, and more recently, Joe Biden did the same when hitting Houthi targets in Yemen as well as in Syria during his presidency. "This authority has been repeatedly used by presidents throughout our history," said Mr Turley."In 2016, Obama dropped more than 26,000 bombs from Syria to Libya to Somalia without such calls for impeachment. History and precedent favours Trump in this action."Speaker Johnson cited examples by previous presidents when defending Trump, saying: "Presidents of both parties have acted with the same commander in chief authority under Article II.""President Obama went on an eight month campaign bombing Libya to take down the regime there. I never heard a Democrat balk about any of that, and suddenly, now this, they're just up in arms. It's all politics." What about other laws? Critics of Trump's strikes on Iran have also pointed to the War Powers Resolution which was passed in 1973 following America's withdrawal from the Vietnam War to limit the president's ability to wage war without consulting Congress the law does allow the president to use force without Congressional approval in emergencies, it states that they should "in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities"."It does not appear that President Trump complied with this requirement," says Mr Bellinger. "Based on reporting so far, it appears that President Trump did not actually have substantive consultations with Congress, but rather simply informed several Republican leaders."US media has reported that Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had been called about an an hour before the strikes began but with little White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote on X that the administration made "bipartisan courtesy calls to Congressional leadership" and spoke to Senator Schumer in advance of the resolution also says that Congress must be notified within 48 hours after military action has taken of Defense Pete Hegseth said that Congress "were notified after the planes were safely out" and that they "complied with the notification requirements of the War Powers Act". What do you want BBC Verify to investigate?
The Herald Scotland
43 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Starmer accepts Trump demand on defence spending rise
The increase will see a major rise what UK taxpayers spend on defence. Sir Keir has committed to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence from April 2027, with a goal of increasing that to 3% over the next Parliament, a timetable which could stretch to 2034. READ MORE: The previous Conservative government had committed to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. But ahead of the beginning of the Nato summit, the Prime Minister said the UK must navigate "this era of radical uncertainty with agility, speed and a clear-eyed sense of the national interest" to keep people safe. 'That's why I have made the commitment to spend 5% of GDP on national security. This is an opportunity to deepen our commitment to Nato and drive greater investment in the nation's wider security and resilience. President Trump in the White House on Saturday (Image: AP) 'After all, economic security is national security, and through this strategy we will bring the whole of society with us, creating jobs, growth and wages for working people." The UK government expects most Nato members will agree to spend 3.5% of GDP on core defence, such as the armed forces and weapons, and 1.5% on resilience and security. Under the plan the UK expects to reach at least 4.1% of GDP in 2027. However, Nato member Spain has not agreed after the country's Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, last week said he would not commit to the 5% figure. It was reported on Sunday evening that Spain has reached a deal with Nato that would see it excluded from the 5% spending target. Mr Sanchez said that Spain would be able to keep its commitments to the 32-nation military alliance by spending 2.1% of GDP on defence needs. SNP defence spokesman Dave Doogan said the Prime Minister's announcement underlined that previous defence cuts had put UK security "at risk". He said: "Westminster has spent decades slashing defence spending in Scotland and depleting our armed forces capabilities - cutting Scottish regiments, personnel, ships, aircraft and with it, eroding the relevance of defence within Scottish communities which is so vital to recruitment and retention. "Today's announcement exposes that successive Westminster defence cuts represented a catastrophic false economy, which has put our security at risk. After years of neglect, it's vital that this latest UK government finally delivers a full and fair share of funding for Scotland's conventional forces to boost defences at our end of this island and deliver jobs and investment across Scotland's communities. 'It is vital that increased public funds are spent well - and our defence capabilities are reinforced wisely. Westminster's track record of illegal wars and doomed interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan coupled with Whitehall's litany of procurement disasters such as Nimrod MRA 4 and Ajax Armoured Fighting Vehicles, have put the safety of our troops at risk and wasted £Billions in taxpayers' money. "The UK must now regroup with our European allies on defence procurement and manufacturing rather than glorying in being isolated from the EU while being dismissed by the US at the same time. The need for this strategic and pragmatic way forward, to galvanise Euro-Atlantic security, was made abundantly clear when the EU penned an €800bn defence deal with the increasingly irrelevant UK very much looking in from the outside." Nato secretary general Mark Rutte said a defence investment plan, set to be agreed at the gathering, 'introduces a new baseline, 5% of GDP to be invested in defence'. Speaking at a press conference ahead of the summit, the former Dutch prime minister said the move would be a 'quantum leap'. He told reporters: 'As the world becomes more dangerous, allied leaders will take bold decisions to strengthen our collective defence, making Nato a stronger, a fairer and a more lethal alliance. 'This will include a major new defence investment plan, raising the benchmark for defence investment to 5% of GDP.' He said the defence plan 'that allies will agree in The Hague introduces a new baseline: 5% of GDP to be invested in defence. 'This is a quantum leap that is ambitious, historic, and fundamental to securing our future.' US President Donald Trump has previously called for nations in the 32-member bloc to commit to 5%. Defence was one of the areas that benefited at the spending review earlier this month, when figures published by the Treasury showed that average annual real-terms growth for defence between the 2023-24 and 2028-29 financial year is 3.6%.
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
Donald Trump in bizzare rant after Iranian strike on US airbase in Qatar
Donald Trump ignored a dramatic Iranian missile strike on US forces in Qatar — instead unleashing a online rant about 'sleazebags in the media'. Donald Trump launched into a bizarre rant on his Truth Social platform just hours after Iran fired missiles at a US airbase in Qatar. The US President made no mention of the attack, instead lashing out at the media in an angry monologue. As explosions were reported near Al Udeid Air Base — home to American forces — and Iran boasted of a 'successful response' to US aggression, the former President was more focused on slamming journalists and repeating conspiracy-laced grievances, reports the Mirror. He wrote: "The sites that we hit in Iran were totally destroyed, and everyone knows it. Only the Fake News would say anything different in order to try and demean, as much as possible — And even they say they were 'pretty well destroyed!' "Working especially hard on this falsehood is Allison Cooper of Fake News CNN, Dumb Brian L. Roberts, Chairman of 'Con'cast, Jonny Karl of ABC Fake News, and always, the Losers of, again, Concast's NBC Fake News. It never ends with the sleazebags in the Media, and that's why their Ratings are at an ALL TIME LOW — ZERO CREDIBILITY!" Meanwhile, witnesses in Qatar reported seeing missiles streaking across the sky, followed by blasts near the US base. Though early reports suggested no major damage, Iranian state TV aired martial music and described the strike as 'a mighty and successful response' to US actions. The attack came just hours after Qatar abruptly shut its airspace, bracing for retaliation following recent US bombings on Iran's nuclear sites, believed to have been greenlit by Trump himself. In a post on X just before the explosions, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said: "We neither initiated the war nor seeking it. But we will not leave invasion to the great Iran without answer." Following the strike, Bahrain, which houses the US Navy's 5th Fleet, also closed its airspace temporarily, in a move echoing Qatar's earlier precaution. Qatari officials condemned the missile strike on Al Udeid, claiming their defences intercepted the rockets and no casualties were reported. They added the country's skies are now considered safe. Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. But the US later confirmed casualties as a result of the strike, though numbers remain unclear. Tehran said it deliberately targeted the base, arguing it was located away from civilian areas — a move seen by some as an attempt to avoid wider escalation. A spokesman for the Iranian military added the strike mirrored the number of bombs the US had dropped on Iran's nuclear facilities over the weekend, suggesting it was a measured retaliation. Earlier, Israel dramatically ramped up its assault on Iran, hitting key military targets in the capital Tehran, including the gate of a notorious prison that houses political prisoners and the headquarters of Iran's military repression force. As smoke filled the skies over the Iranian capital, Israel came under a fresh barrage of missiles and drones. The ongoing tit-for-tat strikes have plunged the region deeper into chaos, with civilians in both countries now living under the constant threat of incoming fire.
