logo
Israel-Iran conflict may send prices higher, spark broader economic fallout

Israel-Iran conflict may send prices higher, spark broader economic fallout

Business Standard20 hours ago

Israel's attack on Iran Friday has catapulted their long-running conflict into what could become a wider, more dangerous regional war and potentially drive prices higher for both businesses and households.
Oil and gold surged and the dollar rose as markets retreated, signalling a flight to investments perceived as more safe.
After years of sky-high inflation in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic, Americans have become increasingly leery about the economy this year due to President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs, though the impact so far has been muted.
The latest escalation in the Middle East has the potential to cause widespread price increases that could set consumers back again.
Here's a look at some of the sectors that could face an outsized impact from the escalation in the Middle East, and what that might mean for consumers.
Energy
Oil prices surged Friday to their biggest gain since the onset of Russia's war on Ukraine began more than three years ago. If or when Israel's attack on Iran could impact gas prices, which have been in decline for nearly a year, isn't entirely clear.
Iran is one of the world's major producers of oil, though sanctions by Western countries have limited its sales. If a wider war erupts, it could significantly slow or stop the flow of Iran's oil to its customers. Energy prices have been held in check this year because production has remained relatively high, and demand for it low. A widening conflict could tilt that balance.
The loss of this export supply would wipe out the surplus that was expected in the fourth quarter of this year, analysts for ING wrote in a note to clients.
In the past, conflicts in the Middle East have sent energy price soaring for extended periods but in recent years, because of the huge supply of oil, those spikes have been more fleeting.
Earlier this month, the countries in the OPEC+ alliance decided to increase production again, which often pushes crude prices down. They hit a four-year low in early May. That usually means cheaper gas, of which there is currently a surplus.
According to the auto club organization AAA, the average price for a gallon of gas in the US on Friday was $3.13 per gallon, down from $3.46 a year ago.
Shipping
Shipping costs were already on the rise for a number of reasons. Cargo is being rerouted around the Red Sea where the US began conducting air strikes on Yemen's Houthis, the Iran-backed rebels who were attacking ships on what is a vital global trade route. And this year, companies have scrambled to import as many goods as possible before Trump's tariffs kicked in, pushing demand, and prices to ship, higher.
The Baltic Dry Index, a key indicator of dry bulk shipping demand that tacks the movement of coal, iron ore, grains and more, is hitting eight-month highs.
The window for companies seeking to ship goods before the year's end is coming to a close this month. A widening conflict in the Middle East would only drive prices higher as those companies jostle to get goods from overseas as geopolitical tensions in the region rise.
Shares of ocean shipping companies like Teekay and Frontline rose sharply following Israel's attack.
Consumer goods
Higher energy prices can lead to elevated costs for a wide range of products because just about everything is made and transported using oil or natural gas.
Government data this week revealed that Trump's tariffs have yet to cause a broader rise in inflation. Still, many companies have announced price hikes due to the tariffs. Walmart has already raised prices on some goods and said it will do so again as the back-to-school shopping season begins.
J M Smucker, largely due to the impact of tariffs on coffee from Brazil and Vietnam, said it's also raised prices and will do so again.
Combined with the higher shipping and production costs that could result from the escalated Middle East conflict, prices will almost certainly rise further, analysts say.
Inventory buffers may have allowed firms to put off decisions about raising prices, but that won't be the case for much longer, the ING analysts said. We expect to see bigger spikes in the month-on-month inflation figures through the summer, they added, noting that The Fed's recent Beige Book cited widespread reports of aggressive price hikes already in the pipeline.
Federal Reserve
Federal Reserve officials meet next week to make their next interest rate decision, and the vast majority of economists still think the US central bank will leave its benchmark rate where it is for the fourth straight time. The Fed has been juggling its dual mandate of supporting the labour market while keeping inflation at bay.
That goal may become increasingly difficult to achieve if prices for gas, food and other essential rise due to the Israel-Iran conflict.
If prices go up, Fed officials may be inclined to raise its benchmark rate, raising borrowing costs for businesses and consumers. That could lead to businesses to cut jobs, particularly in the high-growth tech sector, and force Americans to pull back on spending, which drives more than 70% of economic activity in the US.
Shares of tech companies and retailers were among the biggest decliners Friday.
Travel
Perhaps contrary to conventional wisdom, one cascading effect of the heightened Middle East tension may be that the cost of travelling, even if fuel prices rise, will come down.
Airlines have been downgrading their travel forecasts as businesses and families tighten their travel budgets in anticipation of tariff-related price hikes. Several major air disasters also have made some wary of getting on a plane.
Most major US airlines have said they plan to reduce their scheduled domestic flights this summer, citing an ebb in economy passengers booking leisure trips. Last month, Bank of America reported that its credit card customers were spending less on flights and lodging.
And because of the Trump tariff wars, the dollar has fallen almost 10% this year when measured against a basket of foreign currencies, making it more expensive for Americans to travel abroad due to unfavourable exchange rates.
On Friday, shares of major US airlines were in sharp retreat.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

No longer Canadian: Wayne Gretzky's Canadian identity questioned after Donald Trump friendship sparks controversy
No longer Canadian: Wayne Gretzky's Canadian identity questioned after Donald Trump friendship sparks controversy

Time of India

time35 minutes ago

  • Time of India

No longer Canadian: Wayne Gretzky's Canadian identity questioned after Donald Trump friendship sparks controversy

Wayne Gretzky's association with Donald Trump has sparked controversy in Canada (Getty Images) Wayne Gretzky, one of Canada's most beloved sports figures, has found himself at the center of a firestorm — not for anything he did on the ice, but because of who he's standing beside politically. The hockey legend's long-standing relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump has fueled nationalistic backlash, especially as Trump continues to make inflammatory remarks about Canada. Canadian fans claim Wayne Gretzky has 'lost' his Canadian identity The controversy reached a boiling point earlier this year after Donald Trump proposed a 25% tariff on Canadian goods and even joked about Canada becoming the 51st U.S. state. During this tension, Trump publicly referred to Wayne Gretzky as a 'free agent' when it comes to choosing between the U.S. and Canada. That comment didn't sit well with many Canadians, who viewed it as both divisive and disrespectful. — daveryder (@daveryder) Matthew Iwanyk, Chief Operating Officer and host at Edmonton Sports Talk, voiced what many Canadians were feeling. 'You were a great Canadian, but now you are not,' he said in March, according to the New York Times. 'That is the majority sentiment you will get from Edmontonians. ... As much as we love hockey, we love our country more." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch vàng CFDs với sàn môi giới tin cậy IC Markets Tìm hiểu thêm Undo This emotional reaction underscores how deep Gretzky's influence runs in Canadian culture — and how serious the fallout can be when that identity is questioned. Wayne Gretzky responds with diplomacy, but critics remain unswayed Despite the uproar, Gretzky has made it clear he wants no part in political warfare. Speaking with Ben Mulroney on Toronto's AM-640, he said, 'I don't worry about those kind of things because you can't make everybody happy... But, trust me, I have no political power with the prime minister or the president.' Still, images of Gretzky in a MAGA hat and attending Trump events with FBI Director Kash Patel haven't helped his case in the eyes of critics. His wife, Janet Gretzky, even posted — and later deleted — a heartfelt thank-you to fellow hockey icon Bobby Orr for defending Wayne: 'It has broken his heart to read and see the mean comments.' Also Read: Throwback to when Wayne Gretzky, Michael Jordan, and Bo Jackson became animated crime-fighters in 90s cult cartoon ProStars In the end, Gretzky's silence on Trump's policies may not be enough to protect his legacy from political fallout — especially in the country he once so proudly represented.

In battle of the delegations, real story lies in what went unsaid
In battle of the delegations, real story lies in what went unsaid

Time of India

timean hour ago

  • Time of India

In battle of the delegations, real story lies in what went unsaid

In the aftermath of their recent military clash, rival delegations from Delhi and Islamabad converged on various global capitals, each aiming to shape elite opinion, win sympathy, and control the post-crisis narrative. Having witnessed some of the exchanges in London firsthand, the diplomatic duel across briefing rooms, think tanks, and diaspora events was as revealing for what was unsaid as for what was spoken. Messaging starts with messengers The difference in delegation profiles was notable. India's all-party parliamentary mission carried symbolic weight and cross-party legitimacy, including senior figures like Ravi Shankar Prasad and Pankaj Saran. Pakistan's team leaned more on technocrats and veteran advocates of global engagement, such as Sherry Rehman and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. India's group projected cohesion and resolve; Pakistan's aimed to influence narratives and broaden appeal. India's cautious case India's delegation framed Operation Sindoor as part of a broader shift: limited cross-border retaliation to terrorist acts as policy, not aberration. They emphasized terrorism as a global threat whose response merits international understanding—not moral equivalence. The delegation linked India's counterterrorism struggle to challenges faced by Western democracies, with Pakistan as a common denominator. In my observation, Indian representatives appeared quietly frustrated that while many countries expressed sympathy after Pahalgam and tacitly accepted India's right to act, few explicitly condemned Pakistan. Though confident in their message, their delivery often felt restrained. In think tanks, the tone was formal, even stiff; diaspora engagements were reportedly more fiery. Though most accepted the delegation's basic premise, some observers noted the irony in Delhi resisting calls to frame Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a shared threat but now seeking solidarity on Pakistani-based terrorism. Crucially, the delegation faltered when pressed on domestic radicalization. Two of the Pahalgam suspects were reportedly Indian nationals. Asked how New Delhi planned to prevent disillusionment turning to violence, the only response was that 'things today are better than in the 1990s.' This was a missed chance to demonstrate nuanced understanding of the challenge. Other inconsistencies emerged. India's representatives rejected 're-hyphenation' with Pakistan, yet much of their messaging focused on Islamabad. While stressing the quarrel was with Pakistan's military, not its people, questions about suspending the Indus Waters Treaty complicated that briefings took place inside the High Commission, with diaspora members complaining to me that they thought too much political outreach was aimed at UK politicians of Indian heritage. Playing it safe has a certain logic, but may have limited engagement with new or skeptical audiences. Pak's polished—but problematic—pitch If India played it safe, Pakistan opted for smooth. Their delegation turned up at major think tanks eager to engage and keen to appear misunderstood. With assistance from lobbying professionals, their narrative was tightly crafted for European audiences: Pakistan sought peace through dialogue, emphasising Kashmir as the 'unfinished legacy of Partition,' terrorism, and water. Pakistan said it wanted talks, a neutral investigation into Pahalgam, and accused India of refusing cooperation or prove culpability. This narrative of peace sat uneasily beside claims of military success and personal attacks on Indian leaders. Critique of Indian media spin might have bolstered believability had it not been accompanied by other factual distortions: legal sleight-of-hand over Kashmir, misreadings of UN resolutions, and claims that India admitted culpability for terrorism in most convincing moment came on the Indus Waters Treaty, where the stark picture painted of the consequences struck a chord, even if significant action has yet to follow. A key question remains: what was the objective? If persuasion abroad was the objective, the reliance on longstanding misrepresentations made it a difficult sell to informed audiences. If the goal was domestic signaling, that focus likely came at the expense of deeper foreign engagement. Simpler sell, harder ask Ultimately, the Indian delegation framed all terrorism as emanating from Pakistan; Pakistan framed it as emerging from Kashmir. The narratives didn't just clash—they barely shared the same terms of reference. As performative exercises providing content for domestic media, both probably succeeded on their own terms. In the battle to move international opinion, outcomes were uneven. India may have achieved more, but it also had the easier task — framing terrorism as a universal threat aligns with European security narratives. Pakistan, by contrast, asked outside actors to invest political capital in corralling New Delhi back to the negotiating table — a much harder sell. Yet neither side escaped contradiction. India's claim to strategic clarity was weakened by deflection on domestic aspects of terrorism in Kashmir. Pakistan's message of peace was blunted by triumphalism and tired tropes. In diplomacy, silence often speaks louder than words. In London last week, the most telling signals were what each side omitted, ignored, or performed for the audience they believed mattered most. Ladwig III is a senior lecturer at the department of War Studies, King's College London

World of wars and bonfire of G7 vanities
World of wars and bonfire of G7 vanities

New Indian Express

timean hour ago

  • New Indian Express

World of wars and bonfire of G7 vanities

A week is indeed a long time in geopolitics. On Tuesday, the world markets celebrated headlines about a trade deal between China and the US. On Friday, world markets plummeted following Israeli strikes on Iran. Real wars tend to make trade wars look insignificant. This week, the G7, the group of advanced economies, is observing the 50th anniversary of its origin in picturesque Kananaskis in Alberta, at the foothills of the Canadian Rockies. The theme, as always, is lofty: international peace and security, global economic stability and growth, digital transition and global challenges. The ground realities mock at the ballyhooed heft of advanced economies to sustain predictability and stability. Global trade is upended, thanks to Donald J Trump's America First tariff policies. Sure, there is a ceasefire on tariffs, a détente with China and talks about talks with other countries. Peace is in pieces. Trump's promise of peace in 24 hours is consigned to the bunker by Russian President Vladimir Putin. The ceasefire-for-hostages deal in Gaza is comatose. Newly 'liberated' Syria is haunted by sectarian killings despite a relief on sanctions—US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned the country is weeks away from an epic civil war. On Wednesday, after US declared the 'end of bombing', the Houthis warned of attacks. This week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu upped the ante as he authorised Israeli forces to attack Iran. With it, Trump's agenda in West Asia—and a possible Nobel honour—was washed off. In a sequence of complex manoeuvres, Israeli forces targeted the leadership of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, nuclear scientists, military units and nuclear facilities. The sequence is instructive. The audacious attacks were executed just before officials from Iran and the US were to meet in Oman over a new nuclear deal. The US president authorised the talks for the new deal and gave a deadline of 60 days; the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and six countries including the US took 20 months.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store