
Oil Swings as Iran War Escalates and Trump Calls for Low Prices
Oil fluctuated as traders wrestled with US President Donald Trump's call for lower prices amid signs of further escalation in the conflict with Iran.
West Texas Intermediate swung between gains and losses to trade near $73 a barrel after initially surging as much as 6.2%. Qatar suspended air traffic as a precautionary measure, while some oil producers reduced staff at fields in Iraq.
Qatar's move reversed earlier losses. Crude fell toward the start of the session after Trump warned against rising oil prices in a social media post, urging the Energy Department to facilitate more drilling 'now.' Energy Secretary Chris Wright replied, 'We're on it.'
Crude's gains had begun fading even before Trump's post. While there was initial concern that Iran would interfere with energy flows in retaliation for US air attacks on its nuclear sites over the weekend, those fears have ebbed somewhat. Tehran warned earlier that the strikes would trigger 'everlasting consequences,' and Reuters reported that the US sees a high risk of a strike against US forces soon.
'Traders are holding their breath, waiting to see if Israel or Iran expand this conflict beyond military and political targets into traded energy,' Bob McNally, founder of Rapidan Energy Advisers LLC and a former White House energy official, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. 'So far, no one has pulled that trigger.'
The oil market has been gripped by an intensifying crisis since Israel attacked Iran more than a week ago, with crude benchmarks pushing higher, options volumes spiking, and the futures curve shifting to reflect fears of a near-term interruption to supplies.
The Middle East accounts for about a third of global crude production, but there haven't yet been any signs of disruption to physical oil flows, including for cargoes going through the Strait of Hormuz chokepoint. Since Israel's attacks began, there have been signs that Iranian oil shipments out of the Gulf have risen rather than declined.
The unprecedented US strikes were meant to hobble Iran's nuclear program, and targeted sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. At the United Nations on Sunday, Tehran's Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani said the 'timing, nature and scale' of its response 'will be decided by its armed forces.'
There remain multiple, overlapping risks for crude flows. The biggest of those centers on the Strait of Hormuz, should Tehran seek to retaliate by attempting to close the narrow conduit. About a fifth of the world's crude output passes through the waterway at the entrance to the Persian Gulf.
Two supertankers U-turned away from the strait on Sunday, before subsequently resuming on their original course and heading to transit the chokepoint.
Iran's parliament has called for the closure of the strait, according to state-run TV. Such a move, however, couldn't proceed without the approval of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Authorities may yet restrict flows in other ways.
Navies in the region have consistently warned about an elevated threat to tankers, though a liaison between the military and shipping said on Sunday that the continued passage of vessels through the Strait is 'a positive sign for the immediate future.'
'Base case remains that we don't see significant disruptions, neither of oil nor natural gas in the Middle East,' Daan Struyven, head of oil research at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., said in a Bloomberg TV interview. 'We actually have energy prices gradually declining.'
It's not just crude markets being roiled by the the threats to supply. Diesel futures in Europe also surged at the open, touching the equivalent of almost $110 a barrel, before erasing those gains. The Middle East is a significant supplier of barrels to the region.
The crisis will also throw a spotlight onto the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies, including Russia. In recent months, OPEC eased supply curbs at a rapid clip to regain market share, and yet members still have substantial idled capacity that could be reactivated.
US crude's prompt spread — the difference between its two nearest contracts — first widened to as much as $2.24 a barrel in a bullish backwardation structure, from $1.18 on Friday. The closely followed metric then retraced much of that move.
'It may take a few days or even weeks to discern the Iranian response to this unprecedented attack,' RBC Capital Markets LLC analysts including Helima Croft said in a note. 'Above all, we would caution against the knee-jerk 'the worst is behind us' hot-take at this stage.'
To get Bloomberg's Energy Daily newsletter in your inbox, click here.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hindustan Times
10 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump must offer Iran more than bombs, rage and humiliation
DONALD TRUMP was elected to keep America out of foreign wars. But on June 22nd American forces joined Israel's campaign against Iran, striking three nuclear sites. The president's task now is to press Iran's leaders into avoiding a ruinous regional escalation and, as a complement to that, to persuade them to abandon any thought of trying to get a nuclear weapon. Neither will be easy. America's assault, early on Sunday morning local time, involved waves of B-2 bombers repeatedly attacking facilities at Fordow and Natanz. Submarine-launched cruise missiles also struck Isfahan. Mr Trump hailed the success of the mission, saying that Iran's programme had been 'completely and utterly obliterated'. He also warned Iran not to retaliate. The bombing raid appears to have done serious damage to the three sites, but the president cannot be sure how much—not even Iran will have yet had time to assess its full extent. He is certainly right to be worried about Iranian retaliation. That risk explains why The Economist argued that rushing in was the wrong choice for America. We feared that the tradeoffs were, on net, negative: bombing would set back Iran's programme by an uncertain amount, but Iran, its proxies or terrorist cells could go on to kill American troops and civilians, terrorise the Gulf states and send energy prices soaring by, say, making the Strait of Hormuz too dangerous for tankers. Now that Mr Trump has rushed in, he must minimise the chances that the region spirals out of control. Fortunately, the strike itself appears designed to do just that. In the past nine days Israel has attacked a range of targets that are political, military and economic, as well as nuclear. It has also suggested that it might seek to trigger regime change. America, by contrast, focused exclusively on nuclear sites, some of which are thought to be beyond the reach of Israel's air force. Mr Trump has made clear that he is not attempting to overturn the regime—at least for as long as Iran shows restraint. Mr Trump should urgently turn to diplomacy. In his address he declared that 'now is the time for peace'. If he means what he says, he should immediately offer Iran an alternative that leads away from launching retaliatory missile strikes at American bases and Arab states. That means following up on the call by Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defence, to get Iran to return to talks about its programme. These would be more likely to get under way if, while insisting that Iran give up its stocks of enriched uranium and submit to intrusive international inspections, Mr Trump was open to the principle that Iran can have some enrichment capacity, probably as part of a regional consortium that operates outside the country. If Mr Trump fails to seize the moment, Iran will be more likely to redouble its efforts to become a nuclear-weapons power, in an even more clandestine fashion. A first, unwelcome step would be for it to say that it was leaving the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This would signal that the effect of American and Israeli bombing was to inflame its nuclear ambitions. Quitting the NPT would also put future efforts beyond the scrutiny of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Nobody knows whether the regime has managed to stash enriched uranium and key components before America and Israel attacked. After the damage from the attacks, the IAEA will never be able to account for Iran's stocks. If Iran restarts its programme, progress towards a bomb could span several years, or it could be rapid. Either way, America will face the prospect of repeatedly having to help Israel strike it, or—as Sunday's mission suggests—doing the job itself. One motive for Iran to punish America today would be to complicate such future operations by showing that they carry a cost. The immediate offer of talks could help reduce any Iranian retaliation to face-saving strikes. If so, Mr Trump should ignore them and press Iran to come to the table. And lastly, Mr Trump should launch a drive to shift the Middle East out of a pattern of continual war. With this bombing, he has badly shaken his Arab allies. After his visit to the Gulf in May, they came to believe that he would restrain Israel while he continued to negotiate. The prospect of repeated attacks on Iran by Israel supported by America is a grave threat to their vision of a region that finds peace through prosperity. Mr Trump should attempt to rebuild trust using his new influence over Israel. Having helped its prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, by bombing Fordow, Mr Trump now enjoys unprecedented leverage over him. He should apply this not just to end the attacks of the Israeli air force on Iran—where it is anyway running out of nuclear targets—but also to get it to immediately end the war in Gaza, where it has reduced Hamas to ashes at the cost of tens of thousands of Palestinian lives. There has never been a more propitious moment for a comprehensive peace plan, nor a more urgent one—including for the Palestinians. In the past 20 months Israel has devastated Iran's malign control of a crescent of militias and client regimes in the region. Now it has weakened the other pillar of its defiance of America and the West: its nuclear programme. Iran was always an obstacle to the 'prosperity agenda' of the Gulf states. Now is a good time to discover if that has changed. Even if Mr Trump offers all this, Iran could nonetheless prefer to cause mayhem. Its leaders have just been humiliated. They were already unpopular at home, and have now left their people open to attack. The regime may calculate that, if it does not strike back, the coming months could bring a palace coup or a challenge from the streets. That would put America in a quandary. If Iran killed a lot of Americans Mr Trump would be forced to respond. His war aims would shift to requiring Iran to stop attacking, or even to demanding regime change. And yet, using air power alone, even America would struggle to impose either of those. An operation with the welcome aim of stopping nuclear proliferation could thereby end up accelerating it. How much better for Mr Trump, after a dazzling display of American power, to pour all his efforts into seeking diplomacy without delay. Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence.


New Indian Express
10 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Trump says Iran and Israel have agreed to a phased-in ceasefire over next 24 hours
Trump's announcement comes just before he leaves Tuesday for a NATO summit in the Netherlands, where he will likely make the case that his mix of aggression and diplomacy has succeeded. Never shy to suggest he deserves the Nobel Peace Price, Trump went so far as to give the conflict between Israel and Iran the name of the '12 day war,' a title that seemed to reference the 1967 'Six Day War' in which Israel fought a group of Arab countries including Egypt, Jordan and Syria. As Trump described it, the ceasefire would start with Iran and then be joined by Israel 12 hours later, with the president writing that the respective sides would 'remain PEACEFUL and RESPECTFUL.' The phased-in ceasefire was set to begin at roughly midnight Washington time and culminate within 24 hours. 'This is a War that could have gone on for years, and destroyed the entire Middle East, but it didn't, and never will!' Trump said. The exact terms of the ceasefire other than the timeline provided by the Trump remained to be seen. On Sunday, the Trump administration had insisted that Iran abandon its program to enrich uranium for possible use in nuclear weapons as a condition of any lasting peace. While the bombings of the Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan facilities were a powerful show of force, it remained uncertain just how much nuclear material Iran still possessed and what its ambitions would be going forward.


Hans India
10 minutes ago
- Hans India
No basis for aggression
Moscow: Russian President Vladimir Putin met Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi in Moscow amid the ongoing conflict between Tehran and Tel Aviv. Putin, reiterating Russia's stand on the attack on Iran, said Iran has been attacked without pretext. Putin said the Iranian people will decide to change the regime, not any other country as the US repeatedly asked Iran to surrender. Putin also lashed out at the US and said Russia deeply regrets and condemns the US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. He also said that Russia is ready to help the Iranian people. "Dear Minister, I am very glad to see you. You are visiting Russia at a difficult time, at a time of sharp aggravation of the situation in the region and around your country," Putin said. Russia has extended support to Iran and openly condemned US strikes on its nuclear sites. Speaking on the same, Putin reiterated that there is no justification for the "aggression provoked against Iran". "Our position on the current events is well known. It is clearly stated, articulated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on behalf of Russia and, you know, the opposition that we have taken in the Security Council of the United Nations. The aggression provoked against Iran has absolutely no basis and no justification. We have long-standing good, reliable relations with Iran. We, for our part, are making efforts to provide assistance to the Iranian people," Putin added. The Iranian Minister thanked Russia for its stand in condemning the assault. "We appreciate Russia's stance in condemning this assault. The attack carried out by the United States is, first and foremost, an attack on the UN Charter, as it is entirely in violation of it," he said. "It is an attack on international law, an attack on legal norms and frameworks, and most importantly, an attack on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the non-proliferation regime as a whole,' he added.