Oil prices ease but hover near two-month highs as Middle East tensions escalate
Oil prices fell on Thursday morning, easing back after rallying but hovered around their highest point in two months, as investors eyed escalating tensions in the Middle East and a potential disruption to supply.
Brent crude futures (BZ=F) fell 0.9% to $68.31 a barrel, at the time of writing, while West Texas Intermediate futures (CL=F) declined 0.9% at $67.56 a barrel.
US president Donald Trump said on Wednesday that some of US personnel were being moved out of the Middle East because "it could be a dangerous place to be".
This came following reports earlier in the day that the US was preparing a partial evacuation of its embassy in Baghdad, Iraq. CBS News reported that US officials had been told Israel was ready to launch an operation into Iran and that the US anticipated Iran could retaliate on certain American sites in Iraq.
Read more: FTSE 100 LIVE: Stocks slump as UK GDP contracts in blow to Rachel Reeves
Trump said in an interview with the New York Post, released earlier on Wednesday, that he was "less confident" about getting Iran to agree to halt its nuclear programme.
In a press briefing on Wednesday, Iran's defence minister Aziz Nasirzadeh said: "Some officials on the other side threaten conflict if negotiations don't come to fruition. If a conflict is imposed on us ... all US bases are within our reach and we will boldly target them in host countries."
Matt Britzman, senior equity analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, said that oil prices remain near a two-month high "driven by rising US-Iran tensions and fears of supply disruptions. At the same time, optimism about energy demand grew after the US and China reached a trade framework, and US crude stockpiles fell more than expected, signalling strong consumption."
Gold prices jumped on Thursday morning, as Middle East tensions buoyed demand for the safe-haven asset.
Gold futures (GC=F) surged nearly 1% to $3,376 per ounce at the time of writing, while the spot gold price advanced 0.1% to $3,359.49 per ounce.
The precious metal is considered to be a safe haven asset, in acting as a hedge amid political and economic uncertainty.
Britzman said: "Gold was another winner, with its safe-haven appeal gaining traction amid rising Middle East tensions and softer US inflation data, which gave a modest boost to expectations for rate cuts."
Read more: UK economy shrinks by 0.3% in April
Data released on Wednesday showed that the US consumer prices index (CPI) rose by 0.1% month-on-month, which was below April's 0.2% rise and lower than economists' estimates of a 0.2% monthly gain in prices.
On an annual basis, CPI rose 2.4% in May, a slight uptick from April's 2.3% gain, which marked the lowest yearly increase since February 2021.
Investors were also monitoring the latest trade developments, after Trump said in a social media post on Wednesday afternoon that Washington's deal with China is "DONE, SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL WITH PRESIDENT XI AND ME".
The pound rose slightly against the dollar (GBPUSD=X) on Thursday morning, up 0.2% to $1,3571, despite a bigger than expected contraction in UK economic growth.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said that the UK's gross domestic product (GDP) — the standard measure of an economy's value — shrank by 0.3% in April, which was more than the 0.1% contraction expected by economists. The fall followed growth of 0.2% in March and a 0.7% rise in GDP in the first quarter.
This latest economic data comes a day after chancellor Rachel Reeves delivered the UK spending review, sharing details of governmental department budgets for the next few years.
Key announcements included a £29bn per year increase in funding for the NHS, while the government's defence budget is set to increase from 2.3% to 2.6% of the country's gross domestic product (GDP) from 2027.
Reeves also shared details of a £39bn boost to funding for affordable housing and £15.6bn for transport projects in England's largest city regions outside of London.
Stocks: Create your watchlist and portfolio
Danni Hewson, head of financial analysis at AJ Bell, said: "It's hard not to look at today's headline fall in economic growth as anything other than inevitable. Company after company had warned the chancellor that the decisions taken during last year's budget would impact business growth and create huge uncertainty about existing staffing levels."
"Rachel Reeves has said she is determined to deliver growth, and her spending plans have been given a cautious welcome by business groups up and down the country — but the caution speaks volumes," she said.
"Can the government's trade policies and spending plans deliver the promised growth or was the energy demonstrated by the UK economy at the start of the year merely a tease?"
In other currency moves, the pound fell 0.4% against the euro (GBPEUR=X), trading at €1.1743 at the time of writing.
More broadly, the the FTSE 100 (^FTSE) was little changed, trading at 8,863 points at the time writing. For more details, on broader market movements check our live coverage here.
Read more:
Bitcoin price dips as markets cool after US-China tariff talks
What you need to know about UK's private stock market Pisces
UK house prices remain flat as buyer demand and sales steady
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
32 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Europe's Exporters Feel the Chill From Trump Tariffs
Europe's exports dropped sharply in April as demand was squeezed by President Trump's tariff increases, leading to a fall in factory output that suggests economic growth has slowed after a strong start to the year. European Union exports fell by close to 10% compared with a month earlier, a dramatic reversal from the increase in March as American importers stocked up ahead of Trump's tariff announcement.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
With troops in Los Angeles, echoes of the Kent State massacre
Ohio National Guard members with gas masks and rifles advance toward Kent State University students during an anti-war protest on May 4, 1970. More than a dozen students were killed or injured when the guard opened fire. (.) This article was originally published by The Trace. Earlier in June, President Donald Trump deployed thousands of National Guard troops and Marines to quell anti-deportation protests and secure federal buildings in downtown Los Angeles. The move, some historians say, harks back 55 years to May 4, 1970, when Ohio's Republican governor summoned the National Guard to deal with students demonstrating against the Vietnam War at Kent State University. Guard members were ordered to fire over the students' heads to disperse the crowd, but some couldn't hear because they were wearing gas masks. The troops fired at the students instead, killing four and wounding another nine. The shooting served as a cautionary tale about turning the military on civilians. 'Dispatching California National Guard troops against civilian protesters in Los Angeles chillingly echoes decisions and actions that led to the tragic Kent State shooting,' Brian VanDeMark, author of the book 'Kent State: An American Tragedy,' wrote this week for The Conversation. We asked VanDeMark, a history professor at the United States Naval Academy, more about the parallels between 1970 and today. His interview has been edited for length and clarity. After the Kent State shooting, it became taboo for presidents or governors to even consider authorizing military use of force against civilians. Is the shadow of Kent State looming over Los Angeles? VanDeMark: For young people today, 55 years ago seems like a very long time. For the generation that came of age during the '60s and were in college during that period, Kent State is a defining event, shaping their views of politics and the military. There are risks inherent in deploying the military to deal with crowds and protesters. At Kent State, the county prosecutor warned the governor that something terrible could happen if he didn't shut down the campus after the guard's arrival. The university's administration did not want the guard brought to campus because they understood how provocative that would be to student protesters who were very anti-war and anti-military. It's like waving a red flag in front of a bull. The military is not trained or equipped to deal well with crowd control. It is taught to fight and kill, and to win wars. California Governor Gavin Newsom has said that deploying the guard to Los Angeles is inflammatory. What do you fear most about this new era of domestic military deployment? People's sense of history probably goes back five or 10 years rather than 40 or 50. That's regrettable. The people making these decisions — I can't unpack their motivation or perceptions — but I think their sense of history in terms of the dangers inherent in deploying U.S. troops to deal with street protests is itself a problem. There are parallels between Kent State and Los Angeles. There are protesters throwing bottles at police and setting fires. The Ohio governor called the Kent State protesters dissidents and un-American; President Trump has called the Los Angeles demonstrators insurrectionists, although he appears to have walked that back. What do you make of these similarities? The parallels are rather obvious. The general point I wish to make, without directing it at a particular individual, is that the choice of words used to describe a situation has consequences. Leaders have positions of responsibility and authority. They have a responsibility to try to keep the situation under control. Are officers today more apt to use rubber bullets and other so-called less-lethal rounds than in 1970? Even though these rounds do damage, they're less likely to kill. Could that save lives today? Most likely, yes. In 1970, the guard members at Kent State, all they had were tear gas canisters and assault rifles loaded with live ammunition. Lessons have been learned between 1970 and today, and I'm almost certain that the California National Guard is equipped with batons, plastic shields, and other tools that give them a range of options between doing nothing and killing someone. I've touched one of the bullets used at Kent State. It was five and a half inches long. You can imagine the catastrophic damage that can inflict on the human body. Those bullets will kill at 1,000 yards, so the likelihood that the military personnel in Los Angeles have live ammunition is very remote. Trump authorized the deployment of federal troops not only to Los Angeles but also to wherever protests are 'occurring or are likely to occur,' leading to speculation that the presence of troops will become permanent. Was that ever a consideration in the '60s and '70s, or are we in uncharted waters here? In the 1960s and early 1970s, presidents of both parties were very reluctant to deploy military forces against protests. Has that changed? Apparently it has. I personally believe that the military being used domestically against American citizens, or even people living here illegally, is not the answer. Generally speaking, force is not the answer. The application of force is inherently unpredictable. It's inherently uncontrollable. And very often the consequences of using it are terrible human suffering. Before the Kent State shooting, the assumption by most college-aged protesters was that there weren't physical consequences to engaging in protests. Kent State demonstrated otherwise. In Los Angeles, the governor, the mayor, and all responsible public officials have essentially said they will not tolerate violence or the destruction of property. I think that most of the protesters are peaceful. What concerns me is the small minority who are unaware of our history and don't understand the risks of being aggressive toward the authorities. In Los Angeles, we have not just the guard but also the Marines. Marines, as you mentioned, are trained to fight wars. What's the worst that could happen here? People could get killed. I don't know what's being done in terms of defining rules of engagement, but I assume that the Marines have explicitly been told not to load live ammunition in their weapons because that would risk violence and loss of life. I don't think that the guard or the Marines are particularly enthusiastic about having to apply coercive force against protesters. Their training in that regard is very limited, and their understanding of crowd psychology is probably very limited. The crowd psychology is inherently unpredictable and often nonlinear. If you don't have experience with crowds, you may end up making choices based on your lack of experience that are very regrettable. Some people are imploring the Marines and guard members to refuse the orders and stay home. You interviewed guard members who were at Kent State. Do you think the troops deployed to Los Angeles will come to regret it? Very often, and social science research has corroborated this, when authorities respond to protests and interact with protesters in a respectful fashion, that tends to have a calming effect on the protesters' behavior. But that's something learned through hard experience, and these Marines and guard members don't have that experience. The National Guard was deployed in Detroit in 1967; Washington, D.C. in 1968; Los Angeles in 1965 and 1992; and Minneapolis and other cities in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd. Have the Marines ever been deployed? Or any other military branch? Yes. In 1992, in the wake of the Rodney King controversy, the California governor at the time, a Republican named Pete Wilson, asked President George H.W. Bush to deploy not only the guard but also the Marines to deal with street riots in Los Angeles. That's the last time it was done. And how did that go? I'm not an expert on this, but I assure you that the senior officers who commanded those Marines made it very clear that they were not to discharge their weapons without explicit permission from the officers themselves, and they were probably told not to load their weapons with live ammunition. In 1967, during the Detroit riots, the Michigan National Guard was called out to the streets of Detroit. When the ranking senior officer arrived, he ordered the soldiers to remove their bullets from their rifles. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Avoid escalation': World reacts to Israel strike on Iran
World leaders urged restraint on Friday after Israel pounded Iran, striking 100 targets including nuclear and military sites, and killing senior figures, including nuclear scientists and the armed forces chief of staff. Here is a roundup of key reactions: - 'Cannot have nuclear bomb': United States - US President Donald Trump, told Fox News he was aware Israel was going to conduct strikes on Iran before it happened and said: "Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb and we are hoping to get back to the negotiating table. We will see." Fox News also reported that "Trump noted the US is ready to defend itself and Israel if Iran retaliates." - 'Maximum restraint': UN - UN chief Antonio Guterres asked "both sides to show maximum restraint, avoiding at all costs a descent into deeper conflict, a situation that the region can hardly afford," according to a spokesperson. Guterres was "particularly concerned" by Israel's strikes on nuclear installations amid the ongoing US-Iran negotiations. - 'Deeply worried' : China - "The Chinese side... is deeply worried about the severe consequences that such actions might bring," foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian said, calling "on relevant parties to take actions that promote regional peace and stability and to avoid further escalation of tensions". - 'Reasonable reaction': Czech Republic - Czech Republic Foreign Minister Jan Lipavsky said Iran "is supporting so many players, including the Hezbollah and Hamas movements, with the intention to destroy the state of Israel, and also seeking a nuclear bomb", that "I see that this was a reasonable reaction from the state of Israel towards a possible threat of a nuclear bomb". - 'Avoid any escalation' : France - "We call on all sides to exercise restraint and avoid any escalation that could undermine regional stability," France's foreign minister Jean-Noel Barrot said on X. - 'Dangerous escalation': Hamas - "This aggression constitutes a dangerous escalation that threatens to destabilise the region," said the Iran-backed, Palestinian militant group, whose October 2023 attack on Israel sparked the Gaza war. - No 'battleground': Jordan - "Jordan has not and will not allow any violation of its airspace, reaffirming that the Kingdom will not be a battleground for any conflict," a government spokesperson told AFP after Jordan closed its airspace. - 'Dangerous approach' : Oman - Nuclear talks mediator Oman said "calls on the international community to adopt a clear and firm position to put an end to this dangerous approach, which threatens to rule out diplomatic solutions and jeopardise the security and stability of the region". - 'Strong condemnation': Qatar - Gaza mediator Qatar expressed "its strong condemnation and denunciation of the Israeli attack," the Gulf state's foreign ministry said, adding that the "dangerous escalation threatens security and stability of the region and hinders efforts to de-escalate and reach diplomatic solutions". - 'Aggressive actions': Turkey - "Israel must put an immediate end to its aggressive actions that could lead to further conflicts," Turkey's foreign ministry said in a statement. - 'Reduce tensions urgently': UK - British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in a statement: "The reports of these strikes are concerning and we urge all parties to step back and reduce tensions urgently. Escalation serves no one in the region." - 'Legitimate right to defend itself': Yemen's Huthi rebels - Tehran-backed Huthi rebels said on Telegram they backed "Iran's full and legitimate right to... develop its nuclear programme" and that "we strongly condemn the brutal Israeli aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran and affirm its full and legitimate right to respond by all possible means". burs-djt/yad
