Wall Street falls as Israel-Iran conflict hits risk appetite
Israel has warned that the widescale strikes were the start of a prolonged operation to prevent Tehran from building an atomic weapon. Iran has promised a harsh response.
Oil prices surged nearly 7% on fears the conflict could disrupt crude supply from the Middle East. U.S. energy stocks rose in tandem, with Exxon up 1.7%.
Airline stocks dropped as fuel costs could surge if supply bottlenecks materialize. Delta Air Lines was down 3.7%, United Airlines dropped 4.4%, and American Airlines declined 4.7%.
Defense stocks climbed, with Lockheed Martin, RTX Corporation, Northrop Grumman gaining between 2.2% and 3.2%.
'We have major domestic policy uncertainty and now on top of that, you have geopolitical unrest, which not only is impacting oil markets, but the broader risk premium,' said Eric Teal, chief investment officer at Comerica Wealth Management.
Washington said it had no part in the operation, but President Donald Trump suggested Iran had brought the attack on itself by resisting U.S. demands to restrict its nuclear program.
Wall Street rises after cooler May inflation data
Trump also urged Iran to make a deal, saying 'the next already planned attacks' will be 'even more brutal'.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said he would speak to Trump later in the day.
At 10:13 a.m. ET, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 659.45 points, or 1.52%, to 42,313.10, the S&P 500 lost 60.38 points, or 1.00%, to 5,984.88 and the Nasdaq Composite lost 227.71 points, or 1.16%, to 19,435.01.
Ten of the 11 major S&P 500 sub-sectors fell, with only energy stocks gaining 1.2%. Financials declined the most, with a 2.1% fall. Information technology lost 1.3%, weighed down by Adobe's shares.
Adobe fell 6.6% despite the Photoshop maker raising its full-year results forecast.
Most megacap and growth stocks declined. Nvidia was down 2.1%, Apple fell 1.5% and Amazon lost 1.3%.
Visa shares hit an over four-week low and were last down 5.9%.
U.S.-listed shares of gold miners rose tracking a rise in bullion prices. Newmont gained 2.2%, while AngloGold Ashanti rose 2.1%.
The S&P 500 remains 2.6% below its record high reached earlier this year, following stellar monthly gains in May driven by upbeat corporate earnings and a softening in Trump's trade stance.
The tech-heavy Nasdaq is about 3.8% off its record closing high reached in December last year.
A tame consumer price report, softer-than-expected producer price data and largely unchanged initial jobless claims earlier this week helped calm investor jitters around tariff-driven price pressures. However, Federal Reserve policymakers are widely expected to keep rates unchanged at their meeting next week.
A University of Michigan survey showed consumer sentiment increased to 60.5 for June from the previous month, according to a preliminary estimate.
Declining issues outnumbered advancers by a 3.88-to-1 ratio on the NYSE and by a 4.4-to-1 ratio on the Nasdaq.
The S&P 500 posted 8 new 52-week highs and 2 new lows while the Nasdaq Composite recorded 18 new highs and 70 new lows.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
7 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
Trump slams Charlamagne tha God over Epstein remarks and Republican Party takeover claims
President Donald Trump publicly criticized radio host Charlamagne tha God on Saturday after the media personality suggested that renewed attention on Jeffrey Epstein could allow traditional conservatives to reclaim influence in the Republican Party. Speaking with Lara Trump on her Fox News show, Charlamagne—whose real name is Lenard McKelvey—argued that the Epstein controversy has energized the MAGA base in a way that opens the door for an internal political shift. 'I think traditional conservatives are going to take the Republican Party back,' McKelvey said, noting that the issue could be a unifying force. 'The MAGA base isn't letting this issue go.' In response, Trump lashed out on Truth Social, calling McKelvey a 'low IQ individual' and a 'sleazebag,' and questioned the appropriateness of his stage name. 'Can anyone imagine the uproar if I used that nickname?' he wrote. Trump accused the radio host of being uninformed and misrepresenting both his leadership and legacy. The controversy comes amid broader tensions over the legacy of Epstein, the late financier and convicted sex offender who died by suicide in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. Though Trump previously pledged to release Epstein-related documents if reelected, he has recently downplayed the matter, telling a reporter: 'Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? That is unbelievable.' Early last month, the Department of Justice and the FBI reaffirmed that Epstein died by suicide and confirmed they found no evidence of a so-called 'client list,' countering theories that persist within segments of the MAGA movement. Despite this, Epstein-related speculation remains prominent among some of Trump's loyal supporters—whom he recently described as 'some stupid Republicans' falling for a hoax—highlighting deepening divides in the GOP. McKelvey characterized these tensions as part of a 'political coup' within the party. He warned Republicans against trying to imitate Trump in future elections, saying: 'You are not going to be Donald Trump... I think you should blow it all up. People are sick and tired of what we've been presented from both parties.' It remains unclear whether the Epstein files will ever be released.
Business Recorder
4 hours ago
- Business Recorder
PM Shehbaz receives Iranian President at PM House
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Sunday received President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Dr Masoud Pezeshkian, at the Prime Minister's House, the PM Office said. Upon his arrival, a guard of honour was presented by a contingent of the Pakistan armed forces, while the national anthems of both countries were played. The Iranian president was introduced to members of the federal cabinet, and Prime Minister Shehbaz also held a brief interaction with the accompanying Iranian delegation. As part of the ceremonial proceedings, President Pezeshkian planted a sapling in the lawn of the PM House. Iran seeks to boost trade to $10bn level According to diplomatic sources, today's meeting at the Prime Minister's House will involve delegation-level talks between the two leaders, in which agreements and memorandums of understanding will be signed to enhance cooperation in various sectors, Aaj News reported. Important issues such as trade, energy, border cooperation, and regional peace and security will be discussed in the meeting. A luncheon in honour of the Iranian President has also been arranged at the Prime Minister's House, which will be attended by senior government officials and diplomats. Sources say that the Iranian president will also hold separate meetings with Senate Chairman Yousaf Raza Gilani and National Assembly Speaker Ayaz Sadiq, in which the two sides will discuss promoting cooperation at the parliamentary level. Later this evening, President Pezeshkian is scheduled to meet President Asif Ali Zardari, where the two presidents will discuss expanding bilateral relations. President Zardari is also expected to host a state dinner in honour of Dr Masoud Pezeshkian. According to diplomatic sources, the Iranian president's visit is being seen as the beginning of a new chapter in Pak-Iran relations, aimed at further strengthening economic and diplomatic ties between the two neighbours.
Express Tribune
5 hours ago
- Express Tribune
The new trade colonialism
On August 1, as the clock struck midnight Eastern Time, a new era in global trade was inaugurated — one that might be remembered not for its reciprocity or fairness, but for the brute leverage of American power. With the rollout of sweeping new reciprocal tariffs under President Donald Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' strategy, dozens of nations were forced into last-minute trade deals that, beneath the surface, bear a striking resemblance to the 'unequal treaties' of the 19th century. Only this time, they were not written at gunpoint, but under threat of economic coercion. The United States, claiming to be correcting trade deficits and restoring domestic manufacturing, has essentially coerced trading partners into accepting higher tariffs, ceding regulatory ground and committing to strategic economic realignments, all while ensuring minimal concessions on its own part. For countries such as Vietnam and Indonesia, and even the European Union, the consequences could be far-reaching, reshaping industrial policies, altering investment incentives and, most importantly, undermining economic sovereignty. The Trump administration's public rationale for this aggressive trade overhaul is the need to rebalance global trade deficits. The claim is straightforward: the US has been losing in trade and it's time to 'even the playing field.' However, this rhetoric masks a complex and asymmetric web of tariffs and conditions that belie the supposed principle of reciprocity. Take Vietnam, for instance. Under its deal with Washington, Hanoi agreed to a 20% tariff on most exports to the US, plus a staggering 40% levy on transshipped goods; a direct blow to Vietnam's unique status as a production hub for global giants like Foxconn, Apple, Intel, and Nike. With 71.7% of Vietnamese exports coming from foreign-invested enterprises, this transshipment clause is more than a customs technicality; it strikes at the heart of Vietnam's export-driven growth model. In return Vietnam was pressured into offering zero tariffs on select US imports, including large-engine automobiles, an almost negligible sector in Vietnam's domestic market but a significant win for US exporters. Indonesia, similarly, secured a slightly lower tariff rate — 19% instead of the initially threatened 32% — but only by agreeing to purchase US Boeing aircraft and remove or reduce various trade barriers. Beyond tariffs, the deals increasingly intrude upon the internal economic policies of sovereign states. Embedded in these trade arrangements are demands regarding "transshipment restrictions" and "supply chain security" — vague yet powerful instruments that allow the US to dictate how and where its partners manufacture goods. These clauses give Washington indirect influence over national industrial strategies, particularly in countries where foreign direct investment forms the backbone of growth. For the European Union, the stakes are no less severe. The deal demanded a $600 billion investment from EU states into the US economy, effectively exporting European capital and potentially jobs to American soil. Even more contentious is the clause requiring the EU to buy $750 billion worth of US energy over three years, a move that French officials bluntly called 'capitulation.' Energy policy, long considered a pillar of national sovereignty, is now subordinated to bilateral trade enforcement mechanisms. In trade diplomacy, access to the US consumer market is perhaps the most coveted prize. The Trump administration has weaponised this leverage to extract far-reaching concessions. For some countries, the alternative to signing a deal is punitive: Mexico faces a 25% blanket tariff and Canada, a top US trading partner, could see tariffs of up to 35% on goods not compliant with the existing USMCA. Meanwhile, India — despite being dubbed a 'friend' by Trump — has been hit with a 25% tariff across the board, plus an unspecified penalty tied to its energy dealings with Russia. Such measures reinforce the view that these 'agreements' are less about trade and more about aligning partners with US geopolitical objectives. Even where countries managed to avoid worst-case tariffs, the deals were often asymmetrical. South Korea, for example, agreed to a 15% tariff rate on its exports while pledging $350 billion in US investments and granting zero tariffs on American agricultural and automobile exports. These are not trade negotiations in the traditional sense. They are economic ultimatums wrapped in diplomatic language. Ironically, while these deals are framed as a win for American workers, they may end up harming US consumers and industries. According to the Yale Budget Lab, the average US household could face $2,400 in additional annual costs due to higher prices on imported goods — effectively a hidden tax. Moreover, American industries that rely on foreign components, like electronics, pharmaceuticals, and textiles, will face disrupted supply chains and rising production costs. This suggests that the primary beneficiaries of these aggressive trade deals are not US consumers or workers, but rather a political narrative built around economic nationalism and short-term geopolitical gains. What makes these modern trade pacts so unsettling is how closely they echo the 'unequal treaties' of colonial history. In the 19th century, Western powers extracted lopsided agreements from Asian nations, forcing them to open ports, accept foreign jurisdiction and buy unwanted goods. Today, the US is not demanding extraterritorial rights, but it is imposing conditions that interfere with national industrial policies, force purchases of US products, and limit the autonomy of states to craft their own trade strategies. In the longer term, this coercive trade strategy may backfire by undermining the very multilateral institutions that have governed global trade for decades. The World Trade Organisation, already weakened, is increasingly sidelined as bilateral power politics dominate. Meanwhile, countries that feel cornered by US tactics may seek alternative trading blocs, perhaps turning to China, regional groupings, or even forming counter-alliances. Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, chief economist at the IMF, warned this week of the broader risk: 'Restoring stability in trade policy is essential to reduce policy uncertainty… Collective efforts should be made to restore and improve the global trading system,' Al Jazeera quoted him as saying. His words are a plea not just for economic sanity, but for the preservation of a rules-based order. While the US has every right to renegotiate trade terms that it deems unfair, fairness must be mutual. These new 'agreements,' far from establishing equitable exchange, are imposing a 21st-century version of the unequal treaty — a shift that may have profound consequences for global diplomacy, development and international economic cooperation.
