&w=3840&q=100)
Rupee sees best opening in over a month on Israel-Iran ceasefire
Indian Rupee opened higher on Tuesday as crude oil prices fell after the US President Donald Trump announced a tentative ceasefire between Iran and Israel.
The domestic currency rose 64 paise to open at 86.11 against the dollar, after closing at 86.75 on Monday, according to Bloomberg. The unit posted the steepest opening gains since May 13, but has fallen 0.61 per cent so far this month.
Hours after Iran launched missiles at the US air base in Qatar -- which were all intercepted -- Trump said Iran and Israel agreed to a 'complete and total ceasefire.' Iran's retaliation at American military bases comes a day after the United States carried out airstrikes on three of Iran's nuclear sites.
However, in response to Trump's ceasefire claims, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that while there is no ceasefire agreement, Iran had no intention to keep responding to Israeli attacks after 4:00 AM Tehran time. The crude oil prices continued to fall after Monday's 7 per cent decline.
Brent crude price was down 2.48 per cent at $69.71 per barrel, while WTI crude prices were lower by 2.58 per cent at 66.74, as of 9:05 AM IST. Meanwhile, the US dollar index, which measures the greenback against a basket of six major currencies, was down 0.28 per cent at 98.13.
The currency may open around 86.15 following a risk-on rally triggered by a ceasefire announcement from US President Trump, though confirmation from Israel and Iran is awaited, Anil Kumar Bhansali, head of treasury and executive director at Finrex Treasury Advisors LLP, said.
HDB Financial Services is set to launch India's biggest-ever initial public offering (IPO) in the non-bank finance company space on Wednesday, June 25, 2025. The IPO of HBD Financial is likely to attract inflows and could push the dollar-rupee below 86.00 levels, Bhansali said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
31 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Bitcoin crosses $105,000 amid geopolitical relief and ETF inflows; Sui, Chainlink jump up to 15%
Bitcoin price increased beyond $105,000. This surge happened because of reduced global tensions and more investments in ETFs. Ethereum also saw a rise. Other cryptocurrencies like Solana and XRP also gained value. Market experts suggest that if the US Federal Reserve indicates interest rate cuts, Bitcoin might rise further. Regulatory changes are also supporting this upward trend. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Crypto TrackerPowered By TOP COINS TOP COIN SETS XRP 187.63 ( 7.27 %) Buy Solana 12,416 ( 6.73 %) Buy Ethereum 2,07,047 ( 5.67 %) Buy Bitcoin 90,53,536 ( 2.54 %) Buy BNB 55,079 ( 1.83 %) Buy Popular in Markets Bitcoin surged past the $105,000 mark on Tuesday, buoyed by easing geopolitical tensions and strong inflows into spot ETFs. As of 12:31 pm IST, the world's largest crypto currency was up 3.7% at $105,785. Ethereum also posted strong gains, rising 8% to $2,430. The broader crypto market added 4.74% to touch a market capitalisation of $3.27 trillion, according to rally came after US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire agreement between Iran and Israel, alleviating concerns of prolonged geopolitical instability and potential disruptions in global oil supply altcoins mirrored Bitcoin's rally. Solana and Sui rose 9% and 15%, respectively, while Chainlink jumped 12%. Other notable gainers included XRP (8.4%), Dogecoin (8%), Avalanche (8%), and Shiba Inu (10%).'The ceasefire alleviated immediate concerns about global oil disruptions and restored geopolitical stability, prompting capital to flow back into risk assets,' said Edul Patel, Co-founder and CEO of Mudrex. 'If Fed Chair Jerome Powell hints at rate cuts in his speech today, Bitcoin could break above the $107,700 resistance,' he Subburaj, CEO of Giottus, noted that the rally was supported by spot Bitcoin ETFs registering $133 million in inflows. 'Despite short-term holders reacting to geopolitical news by moving 14,700 BTC to exchanges, the overall structure shows ongoing accumulation,' he Vishwanath, Co-Founder and CEO of Unocoin, said the current surge is part of a broader trend driven by institutional support. 'Bitcoin has swept liquidity at $100K and now eyes the $110K–$112K zone. If bulls defend $102K, the next leg could aim for $120K,' he CoinDCX Research Team highlighted that this momentum coincides with regulatory tailwinds. 'The Federal Reserve has removed the 'reputational risk' clause penalising Bitcoin and crypto. Saylor's MicroStrategy added another $26 million worth of Bitcoin, now holding 592,345 BTC valued at $41.87 billion,' they said. They also pointed out that Europe's Blockchain Group recently bought 75 BTC, pushing its total holdings to 1,728 Crypto Fear and Greed Index climbed to 65, re-entering the 'Greed' zone, signalling rising investor confidence. Analysts warn, however, that elevated funding rates could lead to temporary pullbacks.'Capital is rotating into majors, and with Bitcoin dominance at 64.5%, this signals market strength. But traders should stay cautious near $110K—whether it's a breakout or bull trap will shape the next wave,' Vishwanath markets await Powell's remarks, traders are watching closely for cues on interest rate policy. Any dovish signal could amplify the current momentum, possibly pushing Bitcoin toward new all-time Read: XRP could hit $5 by 2025, Solana eyes $300: Bitget analyst explains what's driving the rally (Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of the Economic Times)
Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
WhatsApp blocked on US House devices amid Meta's political heat
Meta 's popular online messaging application WhatsApp has been banned from all US House of Representatives-issued devices, according to a memo sent to all House staff on Monday. The notice said the "Office of Cybersecurity has deemed WhatsApp a high risk to users due to the lack of transparency in how it protects user data, absence of stored data encryption, and potential security risks involved with its use." The memo further advised staff to switch to other messaging platforms such as Microsoft Teams, Apple's iMessage and FaceTime, Amazon's Wickr, or Signal. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Top-Podologe sagt: Das hier wirkt bei Nagelpilz wie ein Hochdruckreiniger Gesundheitswoche Mehr erfahren Undo The company disagreed with the move, "We disagree with this decision in the strongest possible terms,' a company spokesperson said, according to Reuters. 'WhatsApp provides one of the highest levels of security available with end-to-end encryption and we believe it is more secure than alternatives that don't provide this level of protection.' This ban comes at a time when Meta chief Mark Zuckerberg is facing an internal backlash over his growing closeness to President Donald Trump and his allies. According to a recent Financial Times report, more than 40 Meta employees have expressed unease with what they see as a sharp political shift by Zuckerberg. His appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast and efforts to build relationships with Trump's inner circle have led some employees to refer to him as 'MAGA Mark'. Live Events The Zuckerberg-led company also donated $1 million to president-elect Donald Trump's inauguration fund. Discover the stories of your interest Blockchain 5 Stories Cyber-safety 7 Stories Fintech 9 Stories E-comm 9 Stories ML 8 Stories Edtech 6 Stories In January, WhatsApp confirmed that users on its platform had been targeted by Israeli spyware firm Paragon Solutions . Those affected included journalists and civil society members, raising further concerns about user safety. At that time the company said it would "continue to protect peoples' ability to communicate privately." In 2022, the House also barred TikTok from staff devices, citing risks tied to its Chinese parent company, ByteDance.
Indian Express
33 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Oil price slips after Iran targets US base in Qatar instead of blocking Strait of Hormuz: Here's why
As Iran launched missiles at a US military base in Qatar in retaliation to American airstrikes at its nuclear facilities, oil prices tumbled. With West Asia on edge amid the Israel-Iran conflagration and the US joining in, the fact that oil prices slipped after Iran fired missiles at Qatar could seem counterintuitive at first, given that it would appear that the conflict was escalating further. Oil traders, however, saw it differently. To them, Iran's Monday evening strikes accompanied by a de-escalatory tone were signals that Tehran was not going to target oil shipments or attempt a blockade of the critical chokepoint—the Strait of Hormuz—and would limit its response to seemingly symbolic strikes. The traders, it now appears, were right in their assessment. Overnight, US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Although the two countries have not officially acknowledged that an understanding has been reached, there are clear indications that military action is likely to be suspended, at least for the time being. Iran's foreign minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi said that there was no agreement on any ceasefire, but if Israel stopped attacking Iran, then the latter had no intention to continue with its attacks. Oil prices started slipping after Iran's volley of missiles at the US base in Qatar, giving up all the gains of the past couple of weeks. Trump's announcement of an Israel-Iran 'ceasefire' further exacerbated the fall. Brent is currently hovering around $68 per barrel. Over the course of the nearly two-week conflict between Israel and Iran, oil prices were volatile, with Brent rising from around $69 per barrel to $81, given the presence of threat to West Asian oil export infrastructure and flows from the region. War risk premiums on shipping surged over fears that oil tankers could become targets, or even collateral damage. But oil prices still did not really shoot through the roof, despite Tehran's warnings that it could shut the Strait of Hormuz. In fact, the Iranian parliament on Sunday recommended the closure of the strait, which is critical for global energy flows, but the oil prices did not really shoot up when markets opened the next day. It was clear that energy markets, while concerned and watchful, were not really buying into Iran's threats of blocking the Strait of Hormuz. For energy industry insiders and analysts, it was always improbable, a highly distant possibility at best. The Strait of Hormuz is a critical and narrow waterway between Iran and Oman, and connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) calls it the 'world's most important oil transit chokepoint', with around one-fifth of global liquid petroleum fuel consumption and global liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade transiting the strait. The strait is critical for India's energy security as well. According to tanker data, over 45 per cent of crude oil imported by Indian refiners in May was likely to have been transported from various oil producing countries in West Asia via the Strait of Hormuz. The importance of the chokepoint for India's energy supply and security cannot be understated as the country is the world's third-largest consumer of crude oil and depends on imports to meet over 88 per cent of its requirement. The strait's blockade, if it actually did happen, would have sent energy prices soaring, with predictions of oil prices in triple-digits, up to $130 per barrel, being widely talked about. Such price levels would have hurt the global economy, with additional pain points for energy import-dependent countries like India. Given the fragile peace now in place in the region, that fear has abated to a great extent, at least for the time being. Iran has in the past threatened to close the strait on multiple occasions, but has never actually done it, even during some of its worst wars. A large number of energy sector experts and analysts, while viewing Iran's repeated threats of the strait's closure with concern, maintained that the possibility was extremely low, primarily because such a move would impose a heavy cost on Iran, which would outweigh any benefit the country may get. 'First foremost, such a blockade would disproportionately harm China, which sources 47 per cent of its seaborne crude from the Middle East Gulf, including Iranian volumes. Iran's ability to maintain its sole major oil customer would be directly jeopardised. Additionally, Tehran has made deliberate efforts over the past two years to rebuild ties with key regional actors, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE, both of which rely heavily on the Strait for exports and have publicly condemned Israel's actions. Sabotaging their flows would risk unraveling those diplomatic gains,' commodity market analytics firm Kpler had said on Thursday (June 19). In fact, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in an interview with Fox News that China should prevent Iran from attempting the strait's closure, as China is the key buyer of Iranian oil and seen as having a close relationship with Iran. He added that while the US retained options to deal with the strait's closure, 'other countries should be looking at that as well'. He also termed the strait's closure as 'economic suicide' for Tehran. Iran remains structurally reliant on the Strait of Hormuz. While it has an oil export terminal located outside the Persian Gulf, its effective capacity is only a fraction of Iran's oil export volumes that cannot bypass the strait. Additionally, Iran would have certainly faced international military retaliation if it went ahead to close the Strait of Hormuz or targeted the transiting oil shipments. 'Any Iranian naval build-up would be detectable in advance, likely triggering a preemptive US and allied response. At most, isolated sabotage efforts could disrupt flows for 24–48 hours, the estimated time required for US forces to neutralise Iran's conventional naval assets… while the rhetoric may generate headlines, the fundamentals argue strongly against action,' Kpler's June 19 note said. Also, the strait's closure would have infringed upon Oman's territorial waters, souring Iran's relationship with its neighbor, which would have been counterproductive for a country that doesn't exactly have a lot of friends and allies in its neighbourhood, analysts pointed out. Iran depends on Oman for back-channel diplomacy with the US, and alienating Muscat could have significantly constrained Iran's diplomatic options. Sukalp Sharma is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express and writes on a host of subjects and sectors, notably energy and aviation. He has over 13 years of experience in journalism with a body of work spanning areas like politics, development, equity markets, corporates, trade, and economic policy. He considers himself an above-average photographer, which goes well with his love for travel. ... Read More
