Gold Nears All-time High amid Israel-Iran Conflict
The price of gold has jumped by 1.4% as demand for the safe-haven asset grows amid Israel's strikes on Iran's nuclear and military facilities. Gold is now about 2% from passing its all-time high of $3,500.20 as the precious metal continues its standout year.
Confident Investing Starts Here:
'As I've been highlighting recently, don't look to US Treasuries for 'safe haven' or 'flight to quality' flows. Their yields barely budged after the Israeli attack on Iran. Instead, watch gold (below) and silver,' said Mohamed El-Erian, President of Queen's College, Cambridge on X this morning.
Gold Rises as Stocks Fall
Although stocks and gold do not exhibit a perfect inverse correlation, the two assets tend to move in opposite directions during times of economic uncertainty. This is due to investors seeking to reduce risk. Stocks are generally viewed as riskier than gold, which acts as a store of value.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Grim Reality of the Conflict in Iran
A damaged residential building in Tehran, Iran, on June 13, 2025. Credit - Middle East Images—AFP/Getty In the early hours of Friday morning, Israel launched a sweeping military campaign against Iran. The ongoing operation, which was reportedly planned to unfold over several days, is targeting a list of nuclear and military facilities, as well as senior regime officials, that grows longer by the hour. Iran has thus far retaliated with drones and a substantial missile barrage that could see Israel expand its targeting further still. In a region that has seen endless bloodshed since Hamas's October 2023 attacks, the grim reality is that things may get much worse before they get even worse. Under the Islamic Republic that took power in 1979, enmity toward Israel has been a core ideological tenet of Iranian foreign policy and a key driver in its regional policy. Over decades, their rivalry played out mainly through indirect actions by Iran and by covert operations from Israel. That dynamic changed last year. In April and again in October, the two sides engaged in direct hostilities, with Iran twice launching massive missile salvoes largely repelled by Israeli and allied air defenses. After the second strike, which came shortly after Israel severely degraded the upper ranks of Hizbollah in Lebanon—the most powerful of Iran's proxies—Israel targeted Iranian air defences and missile production facilities, facing little resistance or response. But while Iran's regional power projection was diminishing and its arsenal of missiles and drones twice proved largely ineffective, a third concern—a nuclear threat which Israel considered existential—was still growing. Tehran had been steadily expanding the scale and scope of its nuclear activity ever since President Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal during his first term; President Joe Biden's Administration sought and failed to revive it. In March, Trump announced that he had reached out to Iran's leadership to negotiate a new deal, and his administration conducted five rounds of talks in Muscat and Rome in attempts to reach one. For Iran, which sought sanctions relief for its embattled economy, the success of negotiations with the U.S. hinged on concessions it has long opposed: Dismantling its nuclear program altogether or even ceasing the domestic enrichment of uranium. For Israel, eliminating, rather than merely restricting, the production of fissile material that could be used to fuel a weapon has been paramount. For President Trump, the prospect of a military strike by Israel seems a means of strengthening Washington's hand in a diplomatic agreement in which he still remains interested. But at the moment, the question may be less a matter of whether diplomacy can succeed than how grievously the situation could escalate. The worst-case scenarios are dire: A cycle of Israeli and Iranian counterstrikes that draw in the U.S., Iran's non-state allies, and regional states, cause grievous harm to civilians on all sides, and inject profound uncertainty into global markets. Over time, Iran's regime could attempt to reconstitute its nuclear activity from the rubble, only with an explicit aim of fashioning a weapon in the shortest possible time as a means of deterrence in the future. Another disastrous scenario is that the regime in Tehran falls and there is a protracted war for power and chaos or an even harder line regime armed with nuclear weapons. Is there a path out of this deepening crisis? Perhaps, though not a particularly promising one. Trump's stated objective—even as the fire is exchanged in two directions—remains a deal with Iran, and Tehran could offer concessions on the stipulation that it also involve an immediate cessation of hostilities with Israel. Were Iran to concede on its red lines in an effort to stave off greater destruction, perhaps Trump would be keen enough to avert a widening conflagration to also press Israel into ending the escalation cycle as well. Iran's government has previously demonstrated that when facing particularly inauspicious circumstances, especially those that might threaten the very foundations of the regime itself, it can make concessions necessary for its survival. But facing perhaps the gravest crisis it has faced since the eight-year-long war with Iraq in the 1980s, it may end up doubling down to the detriment of its people and the region. Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This week in Trumponomics: Good news that doesn't matter
President Trump has gotten some good economic news recently. It's already largely forgotten. Inflation continues to cool, and consumers are feeling a bit cheerier. The year-over-year inflation rate for May came in at a tame 2.4%, lower than economists expected. There were few signs of price hikes caused by Trump's new import taxes. Consumer confidence picked up, according to a monthly University of Michigan survey that has mostly shown gathering gloom since Trump took office. The sentiment index improved for the first time since December, with Americans less worried about runaway inflation than they have been in recent months. Those modest improvements follow a nice gain in the stock market during the last few weeks. It all ties together: Trump rattled investors and consumers in March and April with tariffs that were far more severe than most expected. He has since dialed back the steepest tariffs and relented in other ways. Trump is doing damage control, and the tariff shock is wearing off. This is a fleeting respite, however, because the sudden escalation of the war between Israel and Iran will bum everybody out anew. The war will bring some sticker shock, even for Americans thousands of miles away. Oil prices have jumped 20% in two weeks, to $74 per barrel, as traders first anticipated some kind of an Israeli attack, then bid prices higher still after Israel bombarded Iran's nuclear weapons facilities and other targets on June 12. That price jump is just a fear premium — there hasn't been any actual disruption to oil supplies. If either combatant does target Middle East energy infrastructure, prices could easily top $100, at least for a while. Israel is now determined to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program, which means the fighting could go on for a while and possibly intensify. This is no one-and-done face slap. Gas prices are down from last summer to a national average of about $3.10 per gallon. That's obviously a relief to drivers who were paying $4 and even $5 per gallon just a couple of years ago. Gas prices have an outsized effect on consumer psyches, so that's one important problem Trump hasn't had to deal with. Pump prices will undoubtedly drift up in proportion to rising oil prices. It could be temporary. But that will be happening as Trump's self-imposed trade deadline of July 9 approaches. That's the date by which Trump says he wants trade deals with dozens of countries, or else he'll reimpose 'reciprocal' tariffs that caused a big market sell-off when he first announced them on April 2. Trump halted those tariffs on April 9, but the threat of reimposing them is supposedly the leverage he's using now to hammer out trade have been girding for more tariff announcements and other trade friction around the July 9 deadline. Now they have the new variable of a Middle East war to factor in. There was a modest stock sell-off after Israel launched its first attack on Iran, but not panic. The market seems to be saying the economic damage will be contained. Yet Middle East wars are obviously unpredictable, and this one comes with a sizable list of things that could go wrong. One of the thorniest developments for Trump would be US involvement that puts American troops at risk. The Israelis would welcome US involvement, because American weapons have more punch than Israeli bombs and could readily wreck deeply buried nuclear facilities in Iran that Israel may struggle to destroy on its own. But US involvement would put American ships and bases on Iran's target list. Iran can't beat the United States in a war, but it could kill and injure American service members. Trump campaigned for president last year as the 'peace candidate' who would resolve foreign conflicts, not get America deeper into them. It's all kind of depressing. And that's before Trump's tariffs actually do start to push up prices for clothing, electronics, appliances, and many other everyday things. If you were feeling good a few days ago, try to bottle those good vibes. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices. Sign in to access your portfolio
Time Magazine
an hour ago
- Time Magazine
The Grim Reality of the Conflict Between Iran and Israel
In the early hours of Friday morning, Israel launched a sweeping military campaign against Iran. The ongoing operation, which was reportedly planned to unfold over several days, is targeting a list of nuclear and military facilities, as well as senior regime officials, that grows longer by the hour. Iran has thus far retaliated with drones and a substantial missile barrage that could see Israel expand its targeting further still. In a region that has seen endless bloodshed since Hamas's October 2023 attacks, the grim reality is that things may get much worse before they get even worse. Under the Islamic Republic that took power in 1979, enmity toward Israel has been a core ideological tenet of Iranian foreign policy and a key driver in its regional policy. Over decades, their rivalry played out mainly through indirect actions by Iran and by covert operations from Israel. That dynamic changed last year. In April and again in October, the two sides engaged in direct hostilities, with Iran twice launching massive missile salvoes largely repelled by Israeli and allied air defenses. After the second strike, which came shortly after Israel severely degraded the upper ranks of Hizbollah in Lebanon—the most powerful of Iran's proxies—Israel targeted Iranian air defences and missile production facilities, facing little resistance or response. But while Iran's regional power projection was diminishing and its arsenal of missiles and drones twice proved largely ineffective, a third concern—a nuclear threat which Israel considered existential—was still growing. Tehran had been steadily expanding the scale and scope of its nuclear activity ever since President Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal during his first term; President Joe Biden's Administration sought and failed to revive it. In March, Trump announced that he had reached out to Iran's leadership to negotiate a new deal, and his administration conducted five rounds of talks in Muscat and Rome in attempts to reach one. For Iran, which sought sanctions relief for its embattled economy, the success of negotiations with the U.S. hinged on concessions it has long opposed: Dismantling its nuclear program altogether or even ceasing the domestic enrichment of uranium. For Israel, eliminating, rather than merely restricting, the production of fissile material that could be used to fuel a weapon has been paramount. For President Trump, the prospect of a military strike by Israel seems a means of strengthening Washington's hand in a diplomatic agreement in which he still remains interested. But at the moment, the question may be less a matter of whether diplomacy can succeed than how grievously the situation could escalate. The worst-case scenarios are dire: A cycle of Israeli and Iranian counterstrikes that draw in the U.S., Iran's non-state allies, and regional states, cause grievous harm to civilians on all sides, and inject profound uncertainty into global markets. Over time, Iran's regime could attempt to reconstitute its nuclear activity from the rubble, only with an explicit aim of fashioning a weapon in the shortest possible time as a means of deterrence in the future. Another disastrous scenario is that the regime in Tehran falls and there is a protracted war for power and chaos or an even harder line regime armed with nuclear weapons. Is there a path out of this deepening crisis? Perhaps, though not a particularly promising one. Trump's stated objective—even as the fire is exchanged in two directions—remains a deal with Iran, and Tehran could offer concessions on the stipulation that it also involve an immediate cessation of hostilities with Israel. Were Iran to concede on its red lines in an effort to stave off greater destruction, perhaps Trump would be keen enough to avert a widening conflagration to also press Israel into ending the escalation cycle as well. Iran's government has previously demonstrated that when facing particularly inauspicious circumstances, especially those that might threaten the very foundations of the regime itself, it can make concessions necessary for its survival. But facing perhaps the gravest crisis it has faced since the eight-year-long war with Iraq in the 1980s, it may end up doubling down to the detriment of its people and the region.
