
Crude Sinks As Trump Delays Decision On Iran Strike
Oil prices tumbled Friday and equity traders fought to end a volatile week on a positive note after Donald Trump said he would consider over the next two weeks whether to join Israel's attacks on Iran.
Speculation had been swirling that Trump would throw his lot in with Israel, but on Thursday he said he would decide "within the next two weeks" whether to involve the United States, giving diplomacy a shot to end the hostilities.
While tensions are sky high amid fears of an escalation, the US president's remarks suggested the crisis could be prevented from spiralling into all-out war between the Middle East foes.
Since Israel first hit Iran last Friday, the two have exchanged deadly strikes and apocalyptic warnings, though observers said the conflict has not seen a critical escalation.
European foreign ministers were due to meet their Iranian counterpart on Friday in Geneva.
In a statement read out by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, the president said: "Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks."
Leavitt added: "If there's a chance for diplomacy the president's always going to grab it, but he's not afraid to use strength as well."
Both main oil contracts were down around two percent Friday but uncertainty prevailed and traders remained nervous.
"Crude still calls the shots, and volatility's the devil in the room -- and every trader on the street knows we're two headlines away from chaos," said Stephen Innes at SPI Asset Management.
"Make no mistake: we're trading a geopolitical powder keg with a lit fuse.
"President Trump's two-week 'thinking window' on whether to join Israel's war against Iran is no cooling-off period -- it's a ticking volatility clock."
Stocks were mixed following a public holiday in New York, with Hong Kong, Taipei, Mumbai and Bangkok all up with London, Paris and Frankfurt.
Seoul's Kospi led the gains, rising more than one percent to break 3,000 points for the first time in nearly three and a half years.
The index has risen every day except one since the June 4 election of a new president, which ended months of political crisis and fuelled hopes for an economic rebound.
Tokyo fell as Japanese core inflation accelerated, stoked by a doubling in the cost of rice, a hot topic issue that poses a threat to Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba ahead of elections next month.
There were also losses in Shanghai, Sydney, Singapore, Manila and Jakarta.
The Middle East crisis continues to absorb most of the news but Trump's trade war remains a major obstacle for investors as the end of a 90-day pause on his April 2 tariff blitz approaches with few governments reaching deals to avert them being imposed.
"While the worst of the tariffs have been paused, we suspect it won't be until those deadlines approach that new agreements may be finalised," said David Sekera, chief US market strategist at Morningstar.
"Until then, as news emerges regarding the progress and substance of trade negotiations, these headlines could have an outsize positive or negative impact on markets."
Brent North Sea Crude: DOWN 2.6 percent at $76.85 per barrel
West Texas Intermediate: DOWN 1.9 percent at $73.62 per barrel
Tokyo - Nikkei 225: DOWN 0.2 percent at 38,403.23 (close)
Hong Kong - Hang Seng Index: UP 0.8 percent at 23,421.80
Shanghai - Composite: DOWN 0.1 percent at 3,359.90 (close)
London - FTSE 100: UP 0.3 percent at 8,819.26
Euro/dollar: UP at $1.1517 from $1.1463 on Thursday
Hashtags

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


Int'l Business Times
34 minutes ago
- Int'l Business Times
World Bank And IMF Climate Snub 'Worrying': COP29 Presidency
The hosts of the most recent UN climate talks are worried international lenders are retreating from their commitments to help boost funding for developing countries' response to global warming. This anxiety has grown as the Trump administration has slashed foreign aid and discouraged US-based development lenders like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund from focussing on climate finance. Developing nations, excluding China, will need an estimated $1.3 trillion a year by 2035 in financial assistance to transition to renewable energy and climate-proof their economies from increasing weather extremes. But nowhere near this amount has been committed. At last year's UN COP29 summit in Azerbaijan, rich nations agreed to increase climate finance to $300 billion a year by 2035, an amount decried as woefully inadequate. Azerbaijan and Brazil, which is hosting this year's COP30 conference, have launched an initiative to plug the shortfall that includes expectations of "significant" contributions from international lenders. But so far only two -- the African Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank -- have responded to a call to engage the initiative with ideas, said COP29 president Mukhtar Babayev. "We call on their shareholders to urgently help us to address these concerns," he told climate negotiators at a high-level summit in the German city of Bonn this week. "We fear that a complex and volatile global environment is distracting" many of those expected to play a big role in bridging the climate finance gap, he added. His team travelled to Washington in April for the IMF and World Bank's spring meetings hoping to find the same enthusiasm for climate lending they had encountered a year earlier. But instead they found institutions "very much reluctant now to talk about climate at all", said Azerbaijan's top climate negotiator Yalchin Rafiyev. This was a "worrisome trend", he said, given expectations these lenders would extend the finance needed in the absence of other sources. "They're very much needed," he said. The United States, the World Bank's biggest shareholder, has sent a different message. On the sidelines of the April spring meetings, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged the bank to focus on "dependable technologies" rather than "distortionary climate finance targets." This could mean investing in gas and other fossil fuel-based energy production, he said. Under the Paris Agreement, wealthy developed countries -- those most responsible for global warming to date -- are obligated to pay climate finance to poorer nations. But other countries, most notably China, do make their own voluntary contributions. Finance is a source of long-running tensions at UN climate negotiations. Donors have consistently failed to deliver on past finance pledges, and committed well below what experts agree developing nations need to prepare for the climate crisis. The issue flared again this week in Bonn, with nations at odds over whether to debate financial commitments from rich countries during the formal meetings. European nations have also pared back their foreign aid spending in recent months, raising fears that budgets for climate finance could also face a haircut. At COP29, multilateral development banks (MDBs) led by the World Bank Group estimated they could provide $120 billion annually in climate financing to low and middle income countries, and mobilise another $65 billion from the private sector by 2030. Their estimate for high income countries was $50 billion, with another $65 billion mobilised from the private sector. Rob Moore, of policy think tank E3G, said these lenders are the largest providers of international public finance to developing countries. "Whilst they are facing difficult political headwinds in some quarters, they would be doing both themselves and their clients a disservice by disengaging on climate change," he said. The World Bank in particular has done "a huge amount of work" to align its lending with global climate goals. "If they choose to step back this would be at their own detriment, and other banks like the regionally based MDBs would likely play a bigger role in shaping the economy of the future," he said. The World Bank did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


DW
44 minutes ago
- DW
Iran-Israel war: Will India need to pick a side? – DW – 06/20/2025
The escalating conflict in the Middle East presents India with tough choices — balancing energy security, economic stability and its delicate diplomacy between Israel and Iran. India maintains amicable relations with both Israel and Iran, which is the result of a delicate balancing act stretching back many years. Now, New Delhi finds itself in a precarious position as the Israel-Iran conflict seems to be escalating into a broader confrontation with mounting death tolls and rising uncertainty. India's diplomatic tightrope Over the last decade, India has strengthened ties with Israel, particularly in defense and technology. India has acquired advanced weaponry, including Barak 8 defense missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), loitering munitions and sophisticated radar systems. In last month's short-lived conflict between India and Pakistan, New Delhi reportedly utilized various Israeli-origin weapons, underscoring the importance of the strategic defense partnership. At the same time, India values its historical and cultural connections with Iran, as well as its strategic role in regional connectivity, energy security, and geopolitical balance. Tehran is also New Delhi's second-largest supplier of crude oil. Israeli civilian sites hit by barrage of Iranian missiles To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Importantly, Iran acts as India's gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia. The Chabahar Port project on the Gulf of Oman, developed jointly by India and Iran, is central to this strategy, providing India with direct access to this region while bypassing Pakistan. Shanthie Mariet D'Souza, a regional expert monitoring current events, said that "India needs to maintain its balancing act to protect its security ties with Israel and protect its strategic interests and economic commitment to the Chabahar Port." "With such contrasting objectives, strategic ambiguity serves the purpose of India being dragged into the conflict, which is bound to widen if the war drags on," D'Souza, founder of the Mantraya Institute for Strategic Studies, told DW. Safeguarding New Delhi's interests Last week, India's Ministry of External Affairs issued a statement expressing deep concern at the recent developments between Iran and Israel. "India urges both sides to avoid any escalatory steps. Existing channels of dialogue and diplomacy should be utilised to work towards a de-escalation of the situation and resolving underlying issues," said the statement. "India enjoys close and friendly relations with both countries and stands ready to extend all possible support," it added. Sticking to its policy of strategic ambiguity and nonalignment, India distanced itself from a recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) statement denouncing Israel's attacks on Iran. The SCO is a 10-member bloc created by China and Russia to counter the Western-led global is also a SCO member, despite its regional rivalry with China. Responding to the escalation between Israel and Iran, the SCO expressed "serious concern" and strongly condemned the Israeli military strikes. Indians seek jobs in Israel amid high unemployment To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video P R Kumaraswamy, a professor of Middle Eastern studies specializing in Israeli politics at Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University, told DW that India's strategic silence on the Israel-Iran conflict, mirrored by its decisive refusal to endorse the SCO, reflects a "calculated, nuanced and matured approach" rooted in its national interests and geopolitical balancing. "This approach, akin to its neutrality during the Ukraine-Russia war, also recognizes the sentiments in several Arab capitals as they are caught between Israeli actions and a nuclear Iran as their neighbor," said Kumaraswamy. "Strategic autonomy can also be pursued through calculated and minimalist responses without any rhetorical declarations." D'Souza, however, said such a policy will be useful as long as the conflict between Israel and Iran is short. "If it drags on, every move of India will be analyzed and assessed, and its impartiality will be tested, which will be a test case for India's diplomacy," she said. "It will come under pressure if the conflict prolongs. However, being a votary of diplomacy and dialogue is a prudent policy that will maintain India's principle of non-alignment," she added. Will India's hand be forced? Earlier this week, India launched "Operation Sindhu" to evacuate Indian nationals, starting with 110 Indian students from northern Iran. These students were assisted in crossing into Armenia by road under the supervision of Indian diplomats. Iranians protest Israeli strikes To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Following the successful evacuation from Iran, India extended the operation to include its nationals in Israel. Indian citizens who wish to leave Israel are being evacuated through land borders and then brought to India by air, according to India's Foreign Ministry. Former diplomat Anil Wadhwa said India would resist the pressure to take a clear side in the conflict unless New Delhi's vital interests like energy, connectivity, or security, are directly threatened. "Strategic autonomy has been prioritized by India. In the Middle East itself, opinions are divided over Iranian nuclear activities. India, therefore, works on a bilateral basis with its Middle East partners to develop trust and enhance its interests," Wadhwa told DW. "India will not want to be drawn into bloc-based confrontations. It is building trust through tailored partnerships," he added. Edited by: Keith Walker


DW
2 hours ago
- DW
Iran-Israel conflict: Will India need to pick a side? – DW – 06/20/2025
The escalating conflict in the Middle East presents India with tough choices — balancing energy security, economic stability and its delicate diplomacy between Israel and Iran. India maintains amicable relations with both Israel and Iran, which is the result of a delicate balancing act stretching back many years. Now, New Delhi finds itself in a precarious position as the Israel-Iran conflictseems to be escalating into a broader confrontation with mounting death tolls and rising uncertainty. India's diplomatic tightrope Over the last decade, India has strengthened ties with Israel, particularly in defense and technology. India has acquired advanced weaponry, including Barak 8 defense missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), loitering munitions and sophisticated radar systems. In last month's short-lived conflict between India and Pakistan, New Delhi reportedly utilized various Israeli-origin weapons, underscoring the importance of the strategic defense partnership. At the same time, India values its historical and cultural connections with Iran, as well as its strategic role in regional connectivity, energy security, and geopolitical balance. Tehran is also New Delhi's second-largest supplier of crude oil. Israeli civilian sites hit by barrage of Iranian missiles To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Importantly, Iran acts as India's gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia. The Chabahar Port project on the Gulf of Oman, developed jointly by India and Iran, is central to this strategy, providing India with direct access to this region while bypassing Pakistan. Shanthie Mariet D'Souza, a regional expert monitoring current events, said that "India needs to maintain its balancing act to protect its security ties with Israel and protect its strategic interests and economic commitment to the Chabahar Port." "With such contrasting objectives, strategic ambiguity serves the purpose of India being dragged into the conflict, which is bound to widen if the war drags on," D'Souza, founder of the Mantraya Institute for Strategic Studies, told DW. Safeguarding New Delhi's interests Last week, India's Ministry of External Affairs issued a statement expressing deep concern at the recent developments between Iran and Israel. "India urges both sides to avoid any escalatory steps. Existing channels of dialogue and diplomacy should be utilised to work towards a de-escalation of the situation and resolving underlying issues," said the statement. "India enjoys close and friendly relations with both countries and stands ready to extend all possible support," it added. Sticking to its policy of strategic ambiguity and nonalignment, India distanced itself from a recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) statement denouncing Israel's attacks on Iran. The SCO is a 10-member bloc created by China and Russia to counter the Western-led global is also a SCO member, despite its regional rivalry with China. Responding to escalation between Israel and Iran, the SCO expressed "serious concern" and strongly condemned the Israeli military strikes. Indians seek jobs in Israel amid high unemployment To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video P R Kumaraswamy, a professor of Middle Eastern studies specializing in Israeli politics at Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University, told DW that India's strategic silence on the Israel-Iran conflict, mirrored by its decisive refusal to endorse the SCO, reflects a "calculated, nuanced and matured approach" rooted in its national interests and geopolitical balancing. "This approach, akin to its neutrality during the Ukraine-Russia war, also recognizes the sentiments in several Arab capitals as they are caught between Israeli actions and a nuclear Iran as their neighbor," said Kumaraswamy. "Strategic autonomy can also be pursued through calculated and minimalist responses without any rhetorical declarations." D'Souza, however, said such a policy will be useful as long as the conflict between Israel and Iran is short. "If it drags on, every move of India will be analyzed and assessed, and its impartiality will be tested which will be a test case for India's diplomacy," she said. "It will come under pressure if the conflict prolongs. However, being a votary of diplomacy and dialogue is a prudent policy that will maintain India's principle of non-alignment," she added. Will India's hand be forced? Earlier this week, India launched "Operation Sindhu" to evacuate Indian nationals, starting with 110 Indian students from northern Iran. These students were assisted in crossing into Armenia by road under the supervision of Indian diplomats. Iranians protest Israeli strikes To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Following the successful evacuation from Iran, India extended the operation to include its nationals in Israel. Indian citizens who wish to leave Israel are being evacuated through land borders and then brought to India by air, according to India's Foreign Ministry. Former diplomat Anil Wadhwa said India would resist the pressure to take a clear side in the conflict unless New Delhi vital interests like energy, connectivity or security are directly threatened. "Strategic autonomy has been prioritized by India. In the Middle East itself, opinions are divided over Iranian nuclear activities. India, therefore, works on a bilateral basis with its Middle East partners to develop trust and enhance its interests," Wadhwa told DW. "India will not want to be drawn into bloc-based confrontations. It is building trust through tailored partnerships," he added. Edited by: Keith Walker