Oil jumps over 7% after Israel strikes Iran
Brent crude futures were up $4.94, or 7.12%, to $74.30 a barrel at 1442 GMT, after hitting an intraday high of $78.50, the strongest level since January 27. U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude was up $4.72, or 6.94%, at $72.75, touching its highest since January 21 at $77.62 earlier in the session. Friday's gains were the largest intraday moves for both contracts since 2022, after Russia's invasion of Ukraine caused a spike in energy prices.
Israel said it had targeted Iran's nuclear facilities, ballistic missile factories and military commanders on Friday at the start of what it warned would be a prolonged operation to prevent Tehran from building an atomic weapon. Iran has promised a harsh response.
U.S. President Donald Trump urged Iran to make a deal over its nuclear programme, to put an end to the "next already planned attacks."
The National Iranian Oil Refining and Distribution Company said oil refining and storage facilities had not been damaged and continued to operate. The primary concern was whether the latest developments would affect the Strait of Hormuz, said Nikos Tzabouras, senior market analyst at Tradu.com.
"Sustained upside would require actual disruptions to physical flows - such as damage to Iran's oil infrastructure or a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a key global chokepoint," Tzabouras said in a note on Friday morning.
About a fifth of the world's total oil consumption passes through the strait, or some 18 to 19 million barrels per day (bpd) of oil, condensate and fuel.
So far, no impact to oil flow in the region has been seen, Saxo Bank analyst Ole Hansen said.
"No energy installations have been impacted by the Israeli strikes, so unless Iran decides to drag other nations, especially the U.S. into the conflict, the risk of a supply disruption remains low and should over time reduce the risk premium," Hansen said. Iran could pay a heavy price for blockage of the Strait of Hormuz, which it and its neighbors rely on to ship oil to Asian markets, analysts said on Friday.
"Iran's economy heavily relies on the free passage of goods and vessels through the seaway, as its oil exports are entirely sea-based. Finally, cutting off the Strait of Hormuz would be counterproductive to Iran's relationship with its sole oil customer, China, said Natasha Kaneva, Prateek Kedia, Lyuba Savinova, analysts with JP Morgan.
In other markets, stocks dived and there was a rush to safe havens such as gold and the U.S. dollar and Swiss franc.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Shafaq News
5 hours ago
- Shafaq News
EXPLAINER: From the fight against ISIS to US withdrawal talks
Shafaq News More than a decade after the US-led Global Coalition was formed to defeat ISIS, Iraq is entering a decisive phase. The 2022 Baghdad–Washington agreement set September 2025 as the point to begin US troop withdrawal. Today, as the deadline approaches, Iraq faces competing pressures: renewed warnings of ISIS activity, political demands for full sovereignty, and armed factions' threats against foreign troops. From Combat Operations to Training and Support -The Global Coalition against Daesh was launched in September 2014, led by the United States and joined by 87 members. -Its first task was to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIS while stabilizing liberated areas. -Coalition forces provided combat support to the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) and the Kurdish Peshmerga, and later aided reconstruction. -Under Operation Inherent Resolve, the mission evolved into training, advisory, intelligence, and surveillance support, including countering ISIS financing. -Iraq itself is a key member of the Coalition, with its security forces now leading operations against ISIS remnants. Rising Demands for Foreign Troop Withdrawal After ISIS's territorial defeat in 2017, calls for Coalition withdrawal grew louder. -In January 2020, a US airstrike in Baghdad killed Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi PMF leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, prompting Iraqi leaders to accuse Washington of violating sovereignty. -Soon after, Iraq's parliament passed a non-binding resolution demanding the removal of foreign troops and the cancellation of Baghdad's formal request for Coalition support. -In January 2024, US–Iraq negotiations began on the future of foreign troops, focusing on Iraq's military readiness and the continuing ISIS threat. A joint commission was formed to establish a timeline. -ISIS propaganda quickly seized on the talks, framing them as proof that 'America only understands the language of force.' -Today, about 2,500 US troops remain in Iraq. Renewed ISIS Activity -In July 2024, US Central Command (CENTCOM) warned that ISIS attacks in Iraq and Syria were set to double compared to 2023. -The group claimed 153 attacks in the first half of 2024, surpassing the 121 attacks reported in all of 2023. -CENTCOM credited US and partner forces with 196 counter-ISIS missions during the same period, including: 137 operations, killing 30 militants, and detaining 74 in Iraq. 59 operations, killing 14 militants and detaining 92 in Syria. -US officials estimate about 1,000 ISIS fighters remain in Iraq, describing the threat as persistent but contained. -Critics in Iraq argue the warnings are overstated and used to justify prolonging the US military presence. PMF Pressure Campaign -Pro-Iran factions within the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF)—including Kataib Hezbollah, Harakat Ansarallah al-Nujabaa, and Kataib Sayyid al-Shuhadaa, all sanctioned by Washington—have been central to the campaign against US forces. -These groups targeted US bases in Iraq and Syria, especially after the Gaza war broke out in October 2023. -In January 2024, they declared a suspension of operations, and no attacks have been recorded since—even during Israel–Iran war. -Despite this pause, their leaders continue to call the US deployment 'illegal' and threaten renewed action if the withdrawal is delayed. Iraq's Internal Divide -The debate remains unresolved within Iraq's political and security circles: -Advocates of Withdrawal stress that Iraq's forces are now capable of defending the country, that foreign troops are unconstitutional, and that sovereignty requires ending external military missions. -Supporters of the Coalition argue that the US-led presence still plays a stabilizing role, pointing to ongoing ISIS activity and volatile regional conflicts involving Gaza, Lebanon, Israel, and Iran.
Shafaq News
8 hours ago
- Shafaq News
Greater Israel: Mythical dream or looming threat?
Shafaq News In 1995, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu published a book titled 'A Place Under the Sun,' in which he outlined his comprehensive ideological vision regarding the Palestinian issue. The book was released two years after the Oslo Accords were signed between the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Israeli government. At its core, Netanyahu's perspective denied the existence of Palestine or a Palestinian people. He repeatedly referred to 'Arabs living in the land of Israel,' or 'the land of the Jews.' According to the book, all territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River is considered to be the exclusive domain of the Jewish people. In some parts, he even extended this claim to include the east bank of the Jordan River. In 2025, during a televised interview on i24 News, Netanyahu appeared with a 'charm' shaped like a map of the Promised Land. The right-wing leader, who has ruled Israel for over two decades, did not hesitate to declare that he was 'certainly' committed to the vision of 'Greater Israel.' He added: 'I am on a historical and spiritual mission… It is a mission of generations.' This statement sparked a wave of condemnation from 31 Arab and Islamic countries, as well as the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and the Gulf Cooperation Council. It also brought renewed attention to a long-standing project that has hovered between scriptural narratives and real-world politics for over a century: the project of 'Greater Israel.' However, behind this controversial phrase lies a much older story — one that stretches from the Basel Conference in 1897, through the Balfour Declaration in 1917, and the 1967 war, marked by decades of settlement expansion and political rhetoric that combined religious symbols with strategic aims. Origins Of The Vision The topic remains deeply sensitive and controversial for many across the region — both for opponents of Israel and for those seeking coexistence through normalization agreements. The sensitivity is so acute that several historians and scholars specializing in Zionist ideology and regional history declined to comment, citing the topic's complexity and delicacy. Looking back, over a century ago in a small hall in the Swiss city of Basel in 1897, the First Zionist Congress laid out the contours of a concept that continues to provoke debate today: a national homeland for the Jews, extending beyond historical Palestine, and rooted in a religious narrative describing a land stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates. More than a hundred years later, this vision — known as 'Greater Israel' — remains present in the rhetoric of Israeli politicians, as a symbol in religious slogans, and as a perceived existential threat among many Arabs. While some researchers view it as a political myth unlikely to be realized, others warn that its recurring presence in Israeli political discourse keeps the region in a state of perpetual anxiety, where borders become fluid concepts beyond the scope of international law. Roots Of The Israeli Project Ashraf Akka, an expert in international relations based in Ramallah, told Shafaq News that the project is not a recent development nor a product of contemporary extremism. Its roots go back to 1917, when the Balfour Declaration gave Jews the British-backed promise of a national home in Palestine. 'But the declaration wasn't geographically limited — it carried within it a broader vision extending to natural Palestine between the Nile and the Euphrates,' he said. Akka added that Netanyahu's own writings reflect this interpretation, as he views the state established by the British Mandate on part of Palestine as an incomplete promise — a deviation that must be corrected. He pointed to the 1920 San Remo Conference and colonial understandings like the Sykes-Picot Agreement as factors that granted Zionism more space to envision a redrawn geography in the region, segmented in ways that served the interests of global powers while opening the door to Israeli territorial ambitions. In Jerusalem, historian Hussein al-Deek explained that the project is not merely a political document, but one deeply rooted in religious texts. In an interview with Shafaq News, he noted that both the Torah and the Talmud describe the Promised Land as stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates. The symbolism, he said, 'is evident in the Israeli flag's two blue stripes and in the national anthem Hatikvah, which evokes a dream of controlling the land between the rivers.' Even currency, according to al-Deek, carried maps that went beyond Palestine to include Iraq and Kuwait in the east, Egypt and Saudi Arabia to the south, and Syria and Lebanon to the north. 'These symbols are not random; they are political-religious messages passed down through generations,' al-Deek explained. With the rise of the Likud party in the 1970s, this symbolism began to transform into actual policy, through expanded settlements and rejection of compromises with Arab states. Al-Deek argued that this is when the idea of 'Greater Israel' became a declared political option rather than just a religious aspiration. This symbolic dimension was on display again on September 23, 2023, when Netanyahu stood before the UN General Assembly at its 78th session to present his vision for a 'New Middle East.' He showcased a map shaded in dark green, highlighting countries with which Israel has peace agreements or is negotiating normalization: Egypt, Sudan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Jordan. The map, however, showed no trace of a Palestinian state — the blue area labeled 'Israel' fully covered the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The scene evoked memories of Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich's earlier controversy in Paris, when he displayed a map that included Jordan and Palestinian territories alongside his controversial statement: 'There is no such thing as the Palestinian people.' Analysts saw this as part of a diplomatic version of the 'Greater Israel' narrative. After the speech, Netanyahu posted on social media: 'The greatest achievement of my life is to fight for you and for our country. Shabbat Shalom.' Between Myth and History Yet some see the story from a different perspective. At Alexandria University, Professor Ahmed Fouad Anwar, a scholar of Zionist thought, described the project as 'more mythical than realistic,' telling Shafaq News that history does not support the existence of a centralized, powerful Jewish state that ever controlled such a vast territory. 'Israelites lived in fragmented principalities and had short-lived periods of rule,' Anwar explained. He also pointed out that even within religious Jewish communities, there was opposition to the establishment of the Israeli state in 1948, viewing it as a premature attempt at divine redemption. Zionists themselves initially debated locations for the homeland, including proposals in Africa or Sinai. 'The lack of a constitution and defined borders for Israel to this day reflects an open-ended ambition, but also exposes the limitations of realizing the 'Greater Israel' project,' he added. The Israeli discourse itself has undergone significant shifts. While earlier leaders focused on negotiations and security, the current government employs more explicit references to religious texts and expansionist maps. This contrast between 'symbolism' and 'policy' explains why opinions are divided over how seriously to take the idea of Greater Israel. In Beirut, Mohsen Saleh, director of the Al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies, explained that 'Greater Israel' is a direct reflection of current Israeli government policies, which he describes as the most extreme since the state's founding. Saleh told Shafaq News that maps from decades past continue to reappear — covering Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and parts of Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. 'These are not just symbols, but expressions of strategic ambitions targeting the entire Arab and Islamic world,' he affirmed, adding that the project is built on keeping the region fragmented and weak. 'Any unified renaissance project is viewed as an existential threat to this entity,' Saleh continued. For him, the issue is not limited to Palestine, but is part of a broader civilizational conflict. One of the key events that brought the idea of 'Greater Israel' back to the forefront was the escalation surrounding the Gaza war following Hamas's October 2023 attack, which opened the door to new questions: Is Israel truly aiming to impose expansionist facts beyond Palestine's borders, or is the objective limited to full military control over Gaza? A Contrasting Israeli-Jewish Voice To delve deeper into the issue, Shafaq News turned to the Jewish community in Washington. Israeli-American writer and activist Miko Peled argues that the 'Greater Israel' project has no practical meaning on the ground. 'If realized, it would include millions of Arabs and Palestinians — this is not realistic,' he said. 'I do not believe for a second that there is a genuine intention to expand borders beyond historic Palestine. It is merely a political phrase Netanyahu uses to comfort settlers and the far-right.' Peled added that while the idea stems from the rhetoric of the far-right Zionist movement, it has never gone beyond ideological slogans. 'The reality is that the borders Israeli leaders aspire to today do not go beyond the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. That's the actual ceiling — not the Nile and the Euphrates.' Pointing out that Israel already controls nearly eight million Palestinians, making Jews a minority in historic Palestine — undermining any logic for further expansion, he noted that 'It's illogical for a state facing internal demographic challenges to seek to annex millions more.' However, Peled sees the real danger in Gaza, where — according to him — a large-scale military operation is being planned, aimed at full control over the Strip. 'They are talking about deploying 100,000 troops into Gaza. This is the actual plan being implemented now — not fantasies about expanding to Iraq or Morocco.' He concluded that this is not a genuine political plan, but rather an 'extremist messianic vision used for media purposes.' 'The real threat isn't in the Nile-to-Euphrates maps, but in what's happening every day in Gaza and the West Bank.'
Shafaq News
8 hours ago
- Shafaq News
Trump-Putin meeting eases concerns, stabilizing oil prices amid Ukraine war
Shafaq News - Singapore Oil prices were largely unchanged on Monday after a drop in early trade, as the United States exerted no further pressure on Russia to end the Ukraine war through measures to disrupt its oil exports following a meeting of the leaders of both nations. Brent crude futures dropped 6 cents, or 0.09%, to $65.79 a barrel by 0342 GMT while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude was at $62.82 a barrel, up 2 cents, or 0.03%. U.S. President Donald Trump met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday and emerged more aligned with Moscow on seeking a peace deal instead of a ceasefire first. Trump will meet Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and European leaders on Monday to strike a quick peace deal to end Europe's deadliest war in 80 years. On Friday, Trump said he did not immediately need to consider retaliatory tariffs on countries such as China for buying Russian oil but might have to "in two or three weeks", cooling concerns about a disruption in Russian supply. "A non-outcome was largely priced in, the market remains in wait-and-see, more in a bearish context, if more Russian barrels can arrive into the global crude supply pool should hostilities end in Ukraine," said independent energy analyst Gaurav Sharma. China, the world's biggest oil importer, is the largest buyer of Russian oil, followed by India. "What was primarily in play were the secondary tariffs targeting the key importers of Russian energy, and President Trump has indeed indicated that he will pause pursuing incremental action on this front, at least for China," RBC Capital analyst Helima Croft said in a note. "The status quo remains largely intact for now," Croft said, adding that Moscow would not walk back territorial demands while Ukraine and some European leaders would balk at the land-for-peace deal. Investors are also watching for clues from Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell's comments at this week's Jackson Hole meeting regarding the path of interest rate cuts that could boost stocks to further records. "It's likely he will remain noncommittal and data-dependent, especially with one more payroll and Consumer Price Index (CPI) report before the September 17 FOMC meeting," IG market analyst Tony Sycamore said in a note.
