Will Dow Jones Futures Rebound As Trump Says 'Two Weeks' For Iran Decision?
Dow Jones futures: U.S. stock markets are closed. President Trump suggested an Iran attack decision may not be imminent. Fed chief Jerome Powell is in no rush to cut rates.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
31 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Oil Prices Mixed Amid Middle East Escalation Worries
0019 GMT — Oil prices are mixed in early Asian trade. Energy markets remain on edge amid the likelihood of U.S. joining the Israel-Iran conflict, ANZ Research analysts write in a note. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt read a statement from Trump, saying he would make a decision on potential strikes on Iran within two weeks. Front-month WTI crude oil futures are 1.1% higher at $76.00/bbl; front-month Brent crude oil futures are 2.1% lower at $77.22/bbl.(
Wall Street Journal
32 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Gold Prices Flat in Holiday-Thinned Trading
0013 GMT — Gold prices are flat in holiday-thinned trading as markets digest the outcome of the Federal Reserve meeting and conflict in the Middle East. Israel and Iran continue to exchange attacks, and Trump has said he'll decide on a U.S. strike on Iran 'within two weeks.' The safe-haven metal is trading in a tight range amid lower volumes, but underlying risks remain pronounced, says Tammy Da Costa at FXStreet. Geopolitical tensions remain key upside drivers for gold, though it faces pressure from renewed USD strength after the Fed's update, she writes. Powell's unexpectedly cautious tone suggests monetary policy might stay tighter than anticipated. Non-interest-bearing gold tends to have an inverse correlation with rates. Spot gold was last flat at $3,368/oz. (
Boston Globe
35 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trying to satisfy Trump, NATO is running into difficulties
In any case, his influence is certain to loom over the gathering. Advertisement It has already driven an effort by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte to increase military spending by each of the alliance's 32 members to meet a figure suggested by Trump. He has demanded it be raised to 5 percent of each country's gross domestic product, up from the current level of 2 percent. Rutte has proposed widening the definition of military spending to help meet that objective. The new benchmark would include 3.5 percent of GDP on core military spending — weapons, capabilities, troops — and the rest on what NATO calls 'defense and security-related investment, including in infrastructure and resilience.' In the weeks since Rutte's idea gained steam, its details, and shortcomings, have become clearer, according to officials and experts. The timeline to increase spending may be different for everyone, and officials are confused about the requirements. Even if countries do allocate the sums, European and even American defense industries may not be able to absorb the money or deliver in a timely fashion. Advertisement And while NATO countries generally agree it is past time to spend more on security in Europe, where officials believe a militarized Russia might be tempted to test the alliance within years, some nations already struggle to reach the existing target on military spending. They are unlikely to meet Trump's demand soon, if ever. The discussion about Rutte's proposal, experts said, has devolved into a debate over spending billions of dollars to fund an ever-widening range of priorities. 'It is largely a shell game,' said Jeremy Shapiro, a former State Department official and now research director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. 'There is some reality there, because defense spending is increasing across Europe, but more because of Vladimir Putin than Donald Trump.' Trump first demanded the 5 percent figure two weeks before his inauguration, although his ambassador to NATO, Matt Whitaker, insisted recently that the United States was not 'driving the timeline' for allies to spend more on defense. 'The threats are driving the timeline,' he said. 'Europe keeps telling us that Russia is their biggest threat, and we agree, in the Euro-Atlantic it is. And so we need to make sure everybody's investing.' Initially, Trump's ambitions seemed both abstract and implausible: Only 23 NATO members were meeting their spending goals by the end of last year. But Rutte's proposal allows for some spending on what NATO calls 'military-adjacent' projects. In practical terms, that could include investments in advanced technology; rebuilding roads, bridges, and other infrastructure; civic defense; education; improved health services; and aid to Ukraine. Advertisement In effect, the Trump benchmark 'is both real and not real,' said Nathalie Tocci, director of Italy's Institute of International Affairs. 'The real thing is 3.5 percent, which has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with NATO's getting what it judges it needs,' she said. 'The unreal part is the 1.5 percent, the PR move for Trump,' she said. 'Of course infrastructure is important, and diplomacy and education, so lump it all together for Trump. And if the magic figure of 5 percent ensures benign indifference rather than malign hostility, that's all to the good.' The proposal may have helped Rutte balance the president's desires with those of European leaders, but it has also created complications. Defense ministers meeting at NATO headquarters in Brussels this month appeared confused over how the money should be spent, and how soon, and over whether aid to Ukraine could count. 'We have to find a realistic compromise between what is necessary and what is possible, really, to spend,' said Germany's defense minister, Boris Pistorius. Luxembourg's defense minister, Yuriko Backes, was more blunt. 'It will be the capabilities that will keep us safe, not percentages,' she said. 'This is what should be driving our investments, not the other way around.' Luxembourg will reach the current spending threshold — which was set in 2014 to be accomplished in a decade — only this year. Allies are debating how to count the aid to Ukraine. The current plan is to consider it core military spending. But some of the countries nearest to Russia's borders do not want to dilute their domestic defense and want aid to Ukraine categorized as 'related investments.' Advertisement There is also uncertainty about when allies would be expected to meet the higher spending threshold. Rutte initially proposed 2032, but countries on NATO's eastern flank want it to happen sooner. NATO intelligence suggests that, without a credible military deterrent, Russia could mount an effective offensive against the alliance in five years after the Ukraine war ends. 'We don't have time even for seven years,' Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur of Estonia said recently. 'We have to show that we have everything we need to defend our countries.' This article originally appeared in
