What Israel–Iran conflict means for South African economy
In a globalised world, what happens on one continent invariably affects the rest of the world, and the conflict between Israel and Iran will probably be no different. Oil prices have become volatile, while investors go for gold as a safe haven, and the rand feels the shock.
Frank Blackmore, lead economist at KPMG, says the impact of the conflict between Israel and Iran on global markets, including South Africa, will depend on two key factors.
'Firstly, the scale of the conflict matters. Will it escalate, and will other nations become involved by taking sides?
'If the conflict intensifies beyond what we are currently witnessing, the impact will be far more significant. Secondly, the duration of the conflict also matters. If it is resolved swiftly, the effects on the markets will likely be limited.
'The impact will be felt in two ways. Firstly, through the oil price, and we have already seen an increase since the onset of the conflict. Secondly, through the exchange rate, the rand has already depreciated due to heightened uncertainty, which could lead to inflationary pressure on the local economy and the possibility of interest rates remaining higher for longer.'
Blackmore says that given that both oil and the exchange rate affect the impact of the cost of transporting people and goods around the economy, the inflationary impact will be shifted down onto the consumer in the form of higher inflation. The Reserve Bank may then be forced to maintain elevated interest rates for an extended period.
ALSO READ: Israel vs Iran: Why you may soon have to pay more for petrol in South Africa
Israel-Iran conflict already rattled global markets
Sanisha Packirisamy, chief economist at Momentum Investments, says the intensifying sectarian conflict between Israel and Iran, driven by Israel's airstrikes on Iranian nuclear and military facilities and Iran's subsequent missile responses, has indeed rattled global markets.
'Oil prices spiked by more than 10%, with international Brent Crude Oil prices briefly reaching $78 per barrel due to concerns over potential disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, which is a vital oil corridor for global oil supply.
Although prices later stabilised, ongoing tensions could fuel inflation, constraining central banks' flexibility to lower interest rates in 2025, particularly against the backdrop of a protectionist environment marked by higher trade and tariff barriers.'
Packirisamy, also points out that equity markets saw initial declines but later recovered as hopes for de-escalation grew, particularly with the US reaffirming its defensive rather than offensive position. 'Safe-haven assets, including gold, US treasuries and the US dollar, gained traction amid rising uncertainty.'
ALSO READ: SA economy expected to improve in 2025, but geopolitical risks remain
Geopolitical shocks historically have fleeting impact
She says historically, geopolitical shocks tend to have fleeting market impact unless they significantly impair economic growth or trigger stagflation. 'Currently, Iran's oil exports remain mostly unaffected, with their domestic markets largely targeted so far.
'OPEC's spare capacity also has the ability to mitigate global oil supply concerns, given that spare capacity could match any shortfall from Iran. However, prolonged conflict or a blockade of the Strait could drive oil prices significantly higher, threatening global economic stability.
'However, blocking the Strait would prevent their own shipments from getting out and could trigger retaliation from other exporters.'
Packirisamy also notes that signs of diplomatic efforts, particularly from the US administration, will be critical to watch, given that a de-escalation in the conflict and a lower risk of spilling over into a broader-based regional conflict are necessary for market normalisation.
ALSO READ: Policy Uncertainty Index drops sharply due to various local and global risks
Volatile oil prices due to Israel-Iran conflict
George Brown, senior economist at Schroders, also notes that oil prices are volatile as the conflict continues. He says similar incidents in recent years amounted to a limited exchange, with Iran's response typically sufficient to demonstrate domestic strength without escalating tensions further.
So far, he says, this conflict has proved to be more brutal than other recent escalations. 'Even so, it remains a direct exchange of fire between Iran and Israel with minimal disruption to the oil market.
'The US and several Middle Eastern nations, including those that already condemned the attacks, such as the UAE and Saudi, have no interest in a flare-up of tensions in the region, nor do they wish for disruption of global oil markets. Previously, they intervened to calm situations like this.
'Israel has stated that the operation will continue for 'as many days' as it takes to remove the Iranian threat, but hostilities could settle if Middle Eastern countries and the US mediate a resolution.'
Brown says the likelihood of Iran taking any action in the Strait of Hormuz, the often-touted disaster scenario for oil markets, appears remote. 'Such action would impact flows for the other Middle East nations, which are aiming to mediate the situation, while inflicting little harm on Israel.'
ALSO READ: Weekly economic wrap: Dramatic jumps for gold and oil
Oil facilities not primary target in Israel/Iran conflict
Iranian oil supply makes up 3.5% of the global supply. However, Brown says Israel's stated aim has been to impede Iran's nuclear program, consistent with the fact that most strikes so far targeted Iranian nuclear and military facilities.
'While oil production facilities remain a potential target for Israel, it has yet to target them directly, quite possibly restrained by the knowledge that pushing oil prices higher would damage its relationship with its allies, such as the US.'
Outside of the conflict, Brown points out that other dynamics in the market continue to point to a global market oil surplus continuing to build in the coming months. 'Although oil prices are sensitive to this type of conflict, as in previous similar events, the initial price rise moderated in the following hours.
'If Brent Crude settled at $75 per barrel, it would imply that G7 energy inflation would be a little above 5% over the next year.'
Would this lead to broader inflationary pressure? Brown says probably not. 'Our previous research on the relationship between oil prices and inflation suggests that every 10% rise in oil prices adds just 0.1% to core inflation.'
ALSO READ: Trump's ultimatum undermines US credibility
If US joins, Israel-Iran conflict could push oil price higher
Bianca Botes, director at Citadel Global, warns that tensions are rising in the Middle East, with speculation mounting that the US could soon join the ongoing conflict. 'High-level security meetings and strong public statements have added to the sense of urgency, while both Israel and Iran appear determined to escalate the conflict after several days of hostilities.'
She says these developments pushed oil prices higher, as markets brace for the possibility of a broader confrontation. 'Asian stocks have been mixed, while Wall Street closed in the red. Investors are also cautious ahead of a key monetary policy decision from the Fed today.
'Expectations are that rates will remain unchanged, but it is the forward guidance that will play a critical role in market dynamics. The dollar has softened, and emerging market assets are under pressure as traders weigh both geopolitical risks and uncertainty over future US interest rate moves.
'Risk appetite remains subdued as global markets await further clarity.'
The rand is under pressure amid risk-off sentiment, trading at R17.98/$, R20.68/€ and R24.17/£, Botes says.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
a day ago
- IOL News
'Propaganda masquerading as strategic realism'
Palestinian children clamour for a meal at a charity kitchen in the Mawasi area of Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip. Image: AFP Ziyad Motala There is a certain predictability in the Sunday Times' editorial arc of late, an increasingly tired soliloquy in praise of empire, veiled in the language of pragmatism and national interest. But even by its declining standards, the paper's recent conduct reveals something altogether more disquieting: an abdication of journalistic integrity in favour of ideological alignment with Zionist hasbara and Washington's punitive caprice. For months, the Sunday Times stonewalled a public inquiry, refusing to disclose that its columnist, S'thembiso Msomi, had taken a trip to Israel and written an article in April 2025, a reverent portrayal of Israeli resilience masquerading as impartial analysis, which was funded by the South African Jewish Board of Deputies. This silence was not inadvertent. It was calculated. Only this past Sunday, after a formal complaint was lodged with the Press Council, did the paper grudgingly acknowledge this inconvenient fact. The admission came in the form of a subdued notice buried deep within the paper, accompanied by the usual euphemisms of 'clarification' and 'apology.' One suspects the intent was plain: to bury the admission and hope the public would move on, none the wiser. This is no minor infraction. The Press Code is unambiguous: publications must disclose when a third party finances the cost of news gathering. Failure to do so compromises not only the perceived neutrality of the journalist but the editorial independence of the publication itself. The Sunday Times, one of South Africa's prominent newspapers, violated this basic tenet of ethical journalism and only confessed months later when cornered. But Msomi's subsidised propaganda piece is merely the tip of a much larger ideological iceberg. For some time now, the Sunday Times has become a dependable sanctuary for pro-Israel apologetics and the exculpation of American imperial tantrums. William Gumede's April 27 supplication for normalisation with Israel was not just intellectually lazy; it was ideologically revealing. That his organisation, Democracy Works, has itself been the recipient of funding from several dubious foreign entities raises questions about whether we are reading South African analysis or something concocted in the backrooms of Tel Aviv and Washington, D.C. Not to be outdone, David Bruce, in a piece on July 18, urged the ANC to 're-engage' with Israel, as though genocide were a minor irritant to be filed under diplomatic collateral. This week, Richard Gumede once again joined the chorus with a patronising lecture about South Africa's 'anti-American' posture, couched, of course, in the language of concern for ordinary South Africans. He argues that the ANC's refusal to grovel before Donald Trump's grotesque 'America first' foreign policy is somehow an affront to rational diplomacy. It is a line of reasoning so bankrupt, so wilfully ahistorical, that one wonders whether Gumede has mistaken State Department press releases for political philosophy. To Gumede, the refusal to embrace the punitive actions taken by the United States against its adversaries, China, Russia, and Iran, is symptomatic of ideological recklessness. That these are states with whom South Africa has longstanding economic and strategic ties is brushed aside. That they are themselves frequent targets of American hostility for daring to act independently of Washington's diktats is of no concern. And that Donald Trump's America is perhaps the least principled, most corrupt and least coherent United States government in recent memory is something Gumede conveniently omits. Let us be clear. No state, regardless of its alliances or ideological pretensions, should enjoy impunity for violating international law or trampling on human rights. Those who commit war crimes or persecute their people must be held accountable without exception. Yet to invoke China, Russia or Iran as stock villains to deflect from the horrors in Gaza is not only evasive, it is intellectually bankrupt. Any person possessed of even modest moral clarity can see what is unfolding there: a sustained campaign of collective punishment, bolstered by the silence and acquiescence of the self-styled democratic West. Only a fool believes the United States has a principled interest in human rights. The historical record is unambiguous. So long as the foreign despot salutes the American flag and pledges fealty to Washington, tyranny becomes tolerable, and repression conveniently overlooked. It is particularly rich that Gumede offers up corruption as one of the United States' primary concerns with South Africa. One must ask: Is this the same United States whose president auctioned off foreign policy to the highest bidder, made his inaugural visits to the gilded palaces of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, and returned with real estate contracts for his family? Is this the America whose transactional foreign policy includes deals with murderers and autocrats in exchange for arms deals and hotel licences? If so, Gumede's invocation of corruption is not just misguided. It is obscene. Equally revealing as what the Sunday Times chooses to publish is what it deliberately leaves out. While major newspapers across the globe devoted front pages this Sunday to the deepening famine in Gaza, where Israel stands credibly accused of weaponising starvation against a besieged population, the Sunday Times offered not a single article on the subject. Instead, readers were served yet another polemic lamenting South Africa's supposed diplomatic 'missteps' for refusing to placate the unplacatable. At the very moment when two respected Israeli human rights organisations, B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights Israel, joined the growing international consensus that Israel is committing genocide, the Sunday Times chose to publish yet another piece dismissing South Africa's ICJ application as nothing more than political 'lawfare.' This posture is part of a broader pattern of editorial capture. In an earlier column by Rowan Polovin on May 18, the Sunday Times provided a platform for the chair of the South African Zionist Federation to distort history, sanitise Israeli apartheid, and peddle neocolonial binaries between the "West" and global irrelevance. Polovin's article was not journalism. It was propaganda masquerading as strategic realism, replete with the ugliest strands of ethnic chauvinism and settler-colonial nostalgia. This is not journalism. It is ideological mimicry. The Sunday Times' descent into apologetics for Zionist repression and American belligerence reflects a broader pattern among certain elite opinion-shapers in South Africa. They dress up subservience and Israeli apartheid as realism, and fealty to empire as prudence. But the effect is the same: the slow domestication of South African political discourse in service of foreign powers whose only consistent principle is the ruthless preservation of their interests. In an age when facts are politicised and justice is routinely subverted, affectations of neutrality serve only to mask complicity. The Sunday Times has not simply abdicated its duty to inform. It has aligned itself with the architects of obfuscation, giving comfort to power, to oppression, and Israeli apartheid, something unimaginable in a democratic South Africa bending to the whims of Donald Trump. * Ziyad Motala, Professor of Law, Howard Law School ** The views expressed in this article are necessarily those of The African, IOL or Independent Media.
IOL News
2 days ago
- IOL News
Finance Minister dismisses speculation on 3% inflation target
Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana has dismissed speculation about a formal shift to a 3% inflation target, affirming that any changes will follow due consultation with the Reserve Bank, Cabinet, and other stakeholders. Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana has firmly dismissed speculation that government will formally adopt a 3% inflation target, following a recent announcement by the South African Reserve Bank's (SARB) Monetary Policy Committee (MPC). The SARB's MPC had indicated a preference to target inflation at 3% going forward, raising expectations that the Ministry of Finance would officially endorse this shift during the upcoming Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS). However, Godongwana made it clear that "Minister Godongwana has no plans to do this."
The Herald
2 days ago
- The Herald
July car sales hit six-year peak
Despite the looming threat of tariffs, South Africa's domestic new-vehicle market continued full throttle in July, delivering the highest monthly sales since October 2019. In the tenth straight month of increased volumes, 51,383 units were delivered last month, up 15.6% from July 2024, which industry body Naamsa attributed to improving consumer confidence, favourable credit conditions and a steady recovery in disposable incomes. It firmly re-established pre-Covid-19 levels and momentum in the market's recovery. Passenger cars were the best performing segment last month at 36,248 units, the highest since January 2017 and a gain of 20.1% compared to July 2024. Car rental sales accounted for 14% of last month's figure. Sales of new light commercial vehicles, bakkies and minibuses at 12,356 units were 6.9% higher than July 2024. Medium trucks sold 703 units (+13.9%) while heavy trucks and buses dropped 1.3% to 2,076 units. The much-welcomed decision by the Reserve Bank in July to further reduce the repo rate by 25 basis points to 7% — its third cut this year — will further inject much-needed stimulus into the economy, said Naamsa CEO Mikel Mabasa. 'Encouragingly, household credit extension has continued to improve, while consumer sentiment is rebounding — especially among middle- and upper-income groups. The implementation of pension reforms has also unlocked additional liquidity for big-ticket purchases such as vehicles. This positive trend is further reinforced by improved logistics performance, a more stable electricity supply and a sustained demand for high-spec, cost-effective vehicles across market segments,' he said. Year-to-date sales of 330,274 new vehicles this year were 13.9% up on the first seven months of 2024. 'There remains a direct correlation between the rate-cutting cycle and the upturn in new vehicle sales,' said Lebo Gaoaketse, head of marketing and communication at WesBank. 'The market should continue to expect growth if interest rates remain lower.' 'The cumulative interest rate cut of 1.25% since the cycle started is saving a typical new car buyer about R257 per month. The sweet spot of the new vehicle market is a price point of R370,000 according to WesBank's book. More critically, the interest saving over the loan period could be over R18,500, which shows the impact lower rates have on stimulating the market and aiding affordability.' Vehicle exports have shown resilience in the face of the 25% automotive tariffs imposed by the US in April. Export volumes last month decreased 1.9% to 35,379 units compared to July 2024, but year-to-date exports were still 2.5% ahead of the same period in 2024. However, the 30% tariffs imposed on South Africa from this month are expected to cause economic headwinds for some local motor manufacturers. 'Despite global uncertainty and the looming threat of tariffs, South Africa's vehicle market continues to show remarkable resilience,' said Brandon Cohen, chair of the National Automobile Dealers' Association (NADA). A key contributor to the robust passenger market is the growing influence of Chinese and Asian vehicle brands, he said. Four Chinese importers are now among the top 15 best-sellers, including newer entrants such as Omoda/Jaecoo and Jetour. 'Financial institutions have also shown confidence in these brands by offering white-labelled finance packages, further supporting their market penetration. Meanwhile, manufacturers like Kia and Mahindra continue to feature prominently in the top 10, reflecting strong demand for affordable, value-driven options, a trend that has also underpinned Suzuki's consistent success. 'The rapid rise of Chinese and Asian brands reflects a shift in buyer preferences towards affordability and value. It's a trend we expect to intensify as more brands enter the market,' said Cohen. Toyota retained its lead as South Africa's most popular brand in July. The top 15 selling brands were: 1. Toyota — 12,694 2. Suzuki — 6,257 3. Volkswagen group — 5,738 4. Hyundai — 3,161 5. Ford — 2,877 6. GWM — 2,436 7. Isuzu — 2,427 8. Chery — 2,160 9. Kia — 1,891 10. Mahindra — 1,441 11. Renault — 1,320 12. BMW group — 1,249 13. Nissan — 1,190 14. Omoda and Jaecoo- 1,069 15. Jetour — 717
