
Israel-Iran conflict poses new cost of living threat - here's why
The UK's cost of living crisis hangover is facing fresh pressure from the Israel-Iran conflict and growing tensions across the Middle East.
Whenever the region, particularly a major oil-producing country, is embroiled in some kind of fracas the potential consequences are first seen in global oil prices.
The Middle East accounts for a third of world output.
Iran's share of the total is only about 3% but it is the second largest supplier of natural gas.
Add to that its control of the key Strait of Hormuz shipping route, you can understand why any military action involving Iran has huge implications for the global economy at a time when a US-inspired global trade war is already playing out.
Global oil prices jumped by up to 13% on Friday as the Israel-Iran conflict ramped up.
It was the biggest one day leap seen since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, which gave birth to the energy-driven cost of living crisis.
From lows of $64 a barrel for Brent crude, the international benchmark, earlier this month, the cost is currently 15% higher.
Iran ships all its oil to China because of western sanctions so the world's second-largest economy would have the most to lose in the event of disruption.
Should that happen, China would need to replace that oil by buying elsewhere on the international market, threatening higher prices.
1:42
How are natural gas prices holding up?
UK day ahead prices are 15% up over the past week alone.
Europe is more dependent on Middle East liquefied natural gas (LNG) these days because of sanctions against Russia.
The UK is particularly exposed due to the fact we have low storage capacity and rely so much on gas-fired power to keep the lights on and for heating.
The day ahead price, measured in pence per therm (I won't go into that) is at 93p on Monday.
It sounds rather meaningless until you compare it with the price seen less than a week ago - 81p.
The higher sum was last seen over the winter when demand is at its strongest.
0:18
What are the risks to these prices?
Market experts say Brent crude would easily exceed $100 a barrel in the event of any Iranian threats to supplies through the Strait of Hormuz - the 30-mile wide shipping lane controlled by both Iran and Oman.
While Iran has a history of disrupting trade, analysts believe it will not want to risk its oil and gas income through any blockade.
What do these price increases mean for the UK?
There are implications for the whole economy at a time the chancellor can least afford it as she bets big on public sector-led growth for the economy.
We can expect higher oil, gas and fuel costs to be passed on down supply chains - from the refinery and factory - to the end user, consumers. It could affect anything from foodstuffs to even fake tan.
Increases at the pumps are usually first to appear - probably within the next 10 days. Prices are always quick to rise and slow to reflect easing wholesale costs.
Energy bills will also take in the gas spike, particularly if the wholesale price rises are sustained.
The energy price cap from September - and new fixed term price deals - will first reflect these increases.
How does this all play out in the coming months?
So much depends on events ahead.
But energy price rises are an inflation risk and potential threat to future interest rate cuts.
While LSEG data shows financial markets continuing to expect a further two interest rate cuts by the Bank of England this year, the rate-setting committee will be reluctant to cut if the pace of price growth is led higher than had been expected.
At a time when employers are grappling higher taxes and minimum pay thresholds and consumers a surge in bills following the 'awful April' hikes to council tax, water and other essentials, a fresh energy-linked inflation spike is the last thing anyone needs.
Hashtags

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


The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why Wes Streeting thinks the private sector could help NHS
Health Secretary Wes Streeting said he would consider a greater role for the private sector in the NHS to tackle waiting lists, which currently affect 7.39 million people. Streeting stated he would not be bound by 'outdated ideological battles' and that it would be 'foolish to turn away' from private healthcare, emphasising that treatment remains free at the point of use. He argued that utilising private sector capacity does not contradict NHS principles and is essential to provide timely care, drawing from his personal experience with cancer treatment. His comments are expected to spark controversy among Labour MPs on the left, with concerns about expanding the private sector's role in healthcare. The government stated that previous partnerships with the private sector have delivered more than 500,000 treatments, and the Patients Association welcomed the potential for increased private sector involvement to address the NHS backlog.


Times
11 minutes ago
- Times
Grooming gangs inquiry: Yvette Cooper addresses MPs — follow live
The public inquiry into grooming gangs is expected to trigger and oversee local investigations in areas where there have been 'failures and obstructions' by councils, the police and other institutions. Baroness Casey of Blackstock is keen to avoid a prolonged inquiry. She has instead advised the government to take a targeted approach, with a new 'time-limited' independent commission which will have the ability to compel people to give evidence. Casey told ministers that the commission should 'identify localities where local investigations should be instigated', to ensure that 'complaints and allegations of mishandling, wrongdoing and cover-ups by police, agencies and other professionals and elected officials are brought to light'.


Telegraph
12 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The most powerful conventional engine of warfare ever built is headed for Iran
'Admiral, we have a problem.' 'OK, where is the nearest carrier?' So goes the start of most operational discussions in the Pentagon. And with good reason. A US Carrier Strike Group (CSG) boasts formidable firepower. It centres on a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with 65-70 fighter jets, including multiple types of F-18 Hornet and now increasingly F-35C stealth jets, plus radar/command-and-control planes and an assortment of helicopters. Traditionally the carrier was supported by two Arleigh Burke class destroyers and one Ticonderoga class cruiser (although increasingly this is becoming three Arleigh Burkes as the Ticos reach the end of their life). These mighty warships can create a defence bubble resistant even to hypersonic and ballistic weapons, and bombard shore targets a thousand miles away with Tomahawk cruise missiles. Somewhere nearby below the surface, will be found a nuclear powered attack submarine, armed with more Tomahawks and torpedoes. With its own intelligence and surveillance bubble around it, a US carrier group is the most powerful, versatile and well defended conventional weapons system-of-systems ever created. And now there are about to be two of these in the US Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility – the Middle East. The USS Carl Vinson has been there for a while now, conducting strikes against the Houthis and keeping watch once they stopped shooting back. Meanwhile the USS Nimitz is coming fast from west of the Philippines to the Malacca Strait and presumably onwards to the Gulf. This is significant for a couple of reasons. First, the maths when I was last involved in ops planning said you need two carriers in theatre as a pre-condition for any major US action. The carrier move doesn't mean US involvement in the Israel/Iran conflict is imminent, but it's one of the things they would do before getting stuck in. It gives President Trump more options. There are also significant consequences for Freedom of Navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. On this I need to be very clear – Iran absolutely has the ability to close this strait. Between their mine layers, boarding ability, fast attack craft, uncrewed surface drones, midget submarines and mobile ballistic missiles (in that order) they can either physically close it (with mines) or, by mixing the above, create the insurance conditions for ships to deem it not worth the risk, which amounts to the same thing. Mine clearance is one of the US Navy's few weaknesses. If the Iranians choose to close the Strait it will be difficult to do much about it. Their mass, mobility and dispersal makes striking back difficult. The US had to expend more than a billion dollars' worth of munitions to pound the Houthis into their current ceasefire: Iran would be much harder to crack. But we shouldn't assume that the Nimitz and her group can't move into the Iranian missile envelope and operate there. The Gulf of Oman is a much more carrier-friendly environment than the Red Sea, and US carriers have operated there under the fire of Iranian-supplied missiles for months. Having said the Iranians can close the strait, I don't think they will. Too many countries – such as China, India and indeed the Iranians themselves – need it to stay open. More likely in my view is that they will seek to contest the Strait in some form, relearning the lessons that they originally taught the Houthis. Boarding operations, hijackings, harassment and targeted missile attacks are more likely. And we know from the Red Sea what happens next. Ships stop going through and oil prices climb: and unlike the Red Sea, there's no alternative route for the Strait of Hormuz. This is why the Nimitz is coming, and why there are B-2 Stealth bombers deployed to Diego Garcia, doubtless with Massive Ordnance Penetrators – the unique US weapon which could finish off even the toughest, deepest-buried Iranian nuclear facilities. 'Don't mess around in the Strait or we'll have to get involved,' is the blunt message behind the latest carrier move. This is, and always has been, the beauty of a well formed Strike Group – setting the conditions to avoid conflict by being ready to join in if that fails.