Israel-Iran war highlights Mideast's declining influence on oil prices
The jump in oil prices following Israel's surprise attack on Iran was meaningful but relatively modest considering the high stakes involved in the conflict between the Middle East rivals.
Benchmark Brent crude prices, often considered a gauge for geopolitical risk, rose from below $70 a barrel on June 12, the day before Israel's initial attack, to a peak of $81.40 on June 23 following the United States' strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Prices, however, dropped sharply that same day after it became clear Iran's retaliation against Washington – a well-telegraphed attack on a U.S. military base in Qatar that caused limited damage – was essentially an act of de-escalation. Prices then fell to below pre-war levels at $67 on Tuesday after U.S. President Donald Trump announced that Israel and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire.
The doomsday scenario for energy markets – Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 20% of the world's oil and gas supplies pass – did not occur. In fact, there was almost no disruption to flows out of the Middle East throughout the duration of the conflict.
So, for the time being, it looks like markets were right not to panic.
The moderate 15% low-to-high swing during this conflict suggests oil traders and investors have slashed the risk premium for geopolitical tensions in the Middle East.
Consider the impact on prices of previous tensions in the region. The 1973 Arab oil embargo led to a near quadrupling of oil prices. Disruption to Iranian oil output, opens new tab following the 1979 revolution led to a doubling of spot prices. Iraq's invasion of neighbouring Kuwait in August 1990 caused the price of Brent crude to double to $40 a barrel by mid-October. And the start of the second Gulf war in 2003 led to a 46% surge in prices.
While many of these supply disruptions – with the exception of the oil embargo – ended up being brief, markets reacted violently.
One, of course, needs to be careful when comparing conflicts because each is unique, but the oil market's response to major disruptions in the Middle East has – in percentage terms, at least – progressively diminished in recent decades.
There are multiple potential explanations for this change in the perceived value of the Middle East risk premium.
First, markets may simply be more rational than in the past given access to better news, data and technology.
Investors have become extremely savvy in keeping tabs on near-live energy market conditions. Using satellite ship tracking and aerial images of oilfields, ports and refineries, traders can monitor oil and gas production and transportation, enabling them to better understand supply and demand balances than was possible in previous decades.
In this latest conflict, markets certainly responded rationally.
The risk of a supply disruption increased, so prices did as well, but not excessively because there were significant doubts about Iran's actual ability or willingness to disrupt maritime activity over a long period of time.
Another explanation for the limited price moves could be that producers in the region – again, rational actors – learned from previous conflicts and responded in kind by building alternative export routes and storage to limit the impact of any disruption in the Gulf.
Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, producing around 9 million bpd, nearly a tenth of global demand, now has a crude pipeline running from the Gulf coast to the Red Sea port city of Yanbu in the west, which would have allowed it to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. The pipeline has capacity of 5 million bpd and could probably be expanded by another 2 million bpd.
Additionally, the United Arab Emirates, another major OPEC and regional producer, with output of around 3.3 million bpd of crude, has a 1.5 million bpd pipeline linking its onshore oilfields to the Fujairah oil terminal that is east of the Strait of Hormuz.
Both countries, as well as Kuwait and Iran, also have significant storage facilities in Asia and Europe that would allow them to continue supplying customers even through brief disruptions.
Perhaps the most important reason for the world's diminishing concern over Mideast oil supply disruptions is the simple fact that a smaller percentage of the world's energy supplies now comes from the Middle East.
In recent decades, oil production has surged in new basins such as the United States, Brazil, Guyana, Canada and even China.
OPEC's share of global oil supply declined from over 50% in the 1970s to 37% in 2010 and further to 33% in 2023, according to the International Energy Agency, largely because of surge in shale oil production in the United States, the world's largest energy consumer.
To be sure, the global oil market was well supplied going into the latest conflict, further alleviating concerns.
Ultimately, therefore, the Israel-Iran war is further evidence that the link between Middle East politics and energy prices has loosened, perhaps permanently. So geopolitical risk may keep rising, but don't expect energy prices to follow suit.
The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.
Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI),, opens new tabyour essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X., opens new tab
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Hezbollah threatens to restart firing missiles at Israel if it intensifies operations in Lebanon
The leader of Lebanon 's Hezbollah warned Tuesday that if Israel intensifies its military operations against his group, the Iran -backed armed faction will resume firing missiles toward Israel. Naim Kassem's comments came as Lebanon's Cabinet was meeting to discuss Hezbollah 's disarmament. Beirut is under U.S. pressure to disarm the group that recently fought a 14-month war with Israel and was left gravely weakened, with many of its political and military leaders dead. Since the war ended in November with a U.S.-brokered ceasefire, Hezbollah officials have said the group will not discuss its disarmament until Israel withdraws from five hills it controls inside Lebanon and stops almost daily airstrikes that have killed or wounded hundreds of people, most of them Hezbollah members. Israel has accused Hezbollah of trying to rebuild its military capabilities. Israel's military has said the five locations in Lebanon provide vantage points or are located across from communities in northern Israel, where about 60,000 Israelis were displaced during the war. Since the ceasefire, Hezbollah has claimed responsibility for one attack on a disputed area along the border. In a televised speech Tuesday, Kassem said Hezbollah rejects any timetable to hand over its weapons. 'Israel's interest is not to widen the aggression because if they expand, the resistance will defend, the army will defend and the people will defend,' Kassem said. 'This defense will lead to the fall of missiles inside Israel.' Since the war ended, Hezbollah has withdrawn most of its fighters and weapons from the area along the border with Israel south of the Litani river. Last week, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun reiterated calls for Hezbollah to give up its weapons, angering the group's leadership. The ceasefire agreement left vague how Hezbollah's weapons and military facilities north of the Litani river should be treated, saying Lebanese authorities should dismantle unauthorized facilities starting with the area south of the river. Hezbollah maintains the deal only covers the area south of the Litani, while Israel and the U.S. say it mandates disarmament of the group throughout Lebanon. Kassem said Hezbollah rejects a government vote over its weapons, saying such a decision should be unanimously backed by all Lebanese. "No one can deprive Lebanon of its force to protect its sovereignty,' Kassem said. Hezbollah's weapons are a divisive issue among Lebanese, with some groups calling for its disarmament. The Israel-Hezbollah war started a day after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas -led attack against Israel from Gaza. It left more than 4,000 people dead and caused damage worth $11 billion.
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump is nearly halfway through Project 2025 agenda in just the first six months of his presidency
Nearly half of the initiatives laid out in Project 2025 — which is considered by many to be a blueprint for the second Trump administration — have already been implemented by the president, a rolling analysis has found. Just over six months into Donald Trump's second term, approximately 115 of the 317 objectives set forth in the far-right playbook, authored in 2023 by the Heritage Foundation, have become a reality. That's about 46 percent, according to the Project 2025 Tracker, an online spreadsheet created by two Reddit users and updated as Trump announces policies. It appears to be one of the only publicly available resources regularly updated with data on Project 2025 objectives and administration action. Some of those objectives have been implemented through executive orders, such as shutting down the Department of Education, eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) language from the federal government, and restoring implementation of the death penalty for certain crimes. Other objectives have been pushed forward through Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was passed by Congress in July. Some of those objectives include eliminating electric vehicle incentives and adding work requirements for Medicaid. It's unsurprising that many of Project 2025's 'Mandate for Leadership' objectives have become part of Trump's agenda. Several of his senior staff are authors of or contributors to Project 2025, including Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr, senior trade adviser Peter Navarro, border czar Tom Homan, Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Paul Atkins, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Chief of Protocol Monica Crowley, and others. Other staffers have ties to the Heritage Foundation, which produced the more than 900-page mandate. Despite the administration's close ties to the Heritage Foundation and enacting some nearly identical policies to those named in Project 2025, Trump had insisted on the campaign trail that he knew 'nothing' about the mandate and acted as though he was very unfamiliar with it. The Project 2025 Tracker says that around 63 policies in Project 2025 are currently 'in progress. One example is the language in Project 2025 that encourages the president to revoke guidance that prohibits adoption or foster agencies from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity. While Trump has not signed an executive order directly doing so, his executive order establishing the White House Faith Office includes language that encourages the team to make recommendations 'promoting foster care and adoption programs in partnership with faith-based entities' while promoting religious freedom. In January, Paul Dans, a conservative lawyer who oversaw Project 2025, told CNN t hat Trump's first few actions were 'exactly' what the Heritage Foundation set out to do. 'This is exactly the work we set out to do,' Dans said at the time. 'It's still in the early first stages of bearing fruit, but we wanted to make sure the president was ready to hit the ground running on day one. The rapidity and the depth of what they've rolled out this quickly is a testament to the work done in Project 2025 and other presidential transition projects.'
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
What to know as Israel considers reoccupying Gaza in what would be a major escalation of the war
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is considering ordering the full reoccupation of the Gaza Strip, according to Israeli media, a move that would draw fierce opposition internationally and within Israel. It would mark a stunning escalation of the nearly 22-month war in the territory that has already been largely destroyed and where experts say famine is unfolding. It would put the lives of countless Palestinians and about 20 living hostages at risk, and deepen Israel's already stark international isolation. It would also face fierce opposition within Israel: Families of the hostages would consider it a virtual death sentence, and much of the security establishment is also reportedly opposed to an open-ended occupation that would bog down and further strain the army after nearly two years of regional wars. The threat to reoccupy Gaza could be a negotiating tactic aimed at pressuring Hamas after talks mediated by the United States, Egypt and Qatar appeared to have broken down last month. Or it could be aimed at shoring up support from Netanyahu's far-right coalition partners. His governing allies have long called for escalating the war, taking over Gaza, relocating much of its population through what they refer to as voluntary emigration and reestablishing Jewish settlements that were dismantled when Israel withdrew in 2005. Whether they prevail will likely depend on the one person with leverage over Israel — U.S. President Donald Trump, who has not yet weighed in. Ground operations in the most densely populated areas To take full control of Gaza, Israel would need to launch ground operations in the last areas of the territory that haven't been flattened and where most of Gaza's 2 million Palestinians have sought refuge. That would mean going into the central city of Deir al-Balah and Muwasi, a so-called humanitarian zone where hundreds of thousands of people live in squalid tent camps along the coast. Such operations would force another wave of mass displacement and further disrupt aid deliveries as the U.N. agencies and humanitarian organizations are already struggling to avert famine. Israel already controls around 75% of the territory, which has been declared a buffer zone or placed under evacuation orders. With Israel also largely sealing Gaza's borders, it's unclear where civilians would go. It would also pose a major risk for the remaining 20 or so living hostages, likely held in tunnels or other secret locations. Hamas is believed to have ordered its guards to kill captives if Israeli forces approach. Hamas-led militants abducted 251 hostages in the Oct. 7, 2023, attack that ignited the war and killed around 1,200 people that day, mostly civilians. They are still holding 50 hostages, less than half of them believed to be alive, and recent videos have shown emaciated captives pleading for their lives. Israel's retaliatory offensive has killed over 61,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which does not say how many were civilians or combatants. The ministry, which is part of the Hamas-run government and run by medical professionals, is seen by the United Nations and other experts as the most reliable source on casualties. Israel disputes its toll but has not provided its own. International outrage and further isolation Israel's wartime conduct has shocked much of the international community, and prompted even close Western allies to call for an end to the war and to take steps to recognize Palestinian statehood. The International Court of Justice is considering allegations of genocide, and the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his former defense minister, alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the use of starvation as a method of war. Israel has rejected the allegations and accused those making them of antisemitic 'blood libel." It says it has taken every effort to avoid harming civilians and blames Hamas for their deaths because the militants are deeply entrenched in heavily populated areas. Israel has said it will keep fighting until all the hostages are returned, Hamas is defeated or disarmed, and Gaza's population is given the option of 'voluntary emigration,' which the Palestinians and much of the international community view as forcible expulsion. Hamas has said it will only release the remaining hostages in return for a lasting ceasefire and an Israeli withdrawal. It says it is willing to give up power but will not lay down its arms as long as Israel occupies territories the Palestinians want for a future state. Another open-ended occupation Israel captured Gaza, the West Bank and east Jerusalem in the 1967 Middle East war. The United Nations, the Palestinians and others continued to view Gaza as occupied territory after the 2005 withdrawal of Israeli troops and settlers, as Israel maintained control of its airspace, coastline, most of its land border and its population registry. The full reoccupation of Gaza would pose long-term challenges that Israel is well aware of given its long history of occupying Arab lands, including the likelihood of a prolonged insurgency. Israeli support for the war already appears to have declined since Netanyahu ended a ceasefire in March, as soldiers have been killed in hit-and-run attacks. As an occupying power, Israel would be expected to maintain order and ensure the basic needs of the population are met. In the West Bank, it has largely outsourced that to the Palestinian Authority, which exercises limited autonomy in population centers. But in Gaza, Netanyahu has ruled out any future role for the PA, accusing it of not being fully committed to peace, and has not produced any plan for Gaza's postwar governance and reconstruction. Long-term repercussions Even if Israel succeeds in suppressing Hamas, the reoccupation of Gaza could pose an even more profound threat to the country. It would leave Israel in full control of the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, which is home to around 7 million Jews and 7 million Palestinians — most of the latter denied basic rights, including the vote. Even before the war, major human rights groups said the situation amounted to apartheid, something Israel vehemently denies. Unless large numbers of Palestinians are expelled — no longer merely a fantasy of Israel's far-right — Israel would face an all-too-familiar existential dilemma: Create a Palestinian state in the 1967 territories and preserve Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, or rule over millions of Palestinians indefinitely and hope they never rally behind the idea of equal rights in a binational state. Israel would no longer be able to point to Hamas' rule in Gaza, or factional divisions among Palestinians, as reasons to avoid such a reckoning. And when Trump leaves office, it may find it has few friends to back it up. ___
