Oil hits five-month high after US attacks key Iranian nuclear sites
SINGAPORE: Oil prices jumped on Monday to their highest since January as the United States' weekend move to join Israel in attacking Iran's nuclear facilities stoked supply worries.
Brent crude futures was up US$1.92 or 2.49 per cent at US$78.93 a barrel as of 0117 GMT. US West Texas Intermediate crude advanced US$1.89 or 2.56 per cent to US$75.73.
Both contracts jumped by more than 3 per cent earlier in the session to US$81.40 and US$78.40, respectively, touching five-month highs before giving up some gains.
The rise in prices came after US President Donald Trump said he had "obliterated" Iran's main nuclear sites in strikes over the weekend, joining an Israeli assault in an escalation of conflict in the Middle East as Tehran vowed to defend itself.
Iran is OPEC's third-largest crude producer.
Market participants expect further price gains amid mounting fears that an Iranian retaliation may include a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of global crude supply flows.
Iran's Press TV reported that the Iranian parliament had approved a measure to close the strait. Iran has in the past threatened to close the strait but has never followed through on the move.
"The risks of damage to oil infrastructure ... have multiplied," said Sparta Commodities senior analyst June Goh.
Although there are alternative pipeline routes out of the region, there will still be crude volume that cannot be fully exported out if the Strait of Hormuz becomes inaccessible. Shippers will increasingly stay out of the region, she added.
Goldman Sachs said in a Sunday report that Brent could briefly peak at US$110 per barrel if oil flows through the critical waterway were halved for a month, and remain down by 10 per cent for the following 11 months.
The bank still assumed no significant disruption to oil and natural gas supply, adding global incentives to try to prevent a sustained and very large disruption.
Brent has risen 13 per cent since the conflict began on June 13, while WTI has gained around 10 per cent.
The current geopolitical risk premium is unlikely to last without tangible supply disruption, analysts said.
Meanwhile, the unwinding of some long positions accumulated following a recent price rally could cap an upside to oil prices, Ole Hansen, head of commodity strategy at Saxo Bank, wrote in a market commentary on Sunday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
4 hours ago
- The Star
Serbia's students, opposition rally to demand snap elections
A drone view shows Serbian students and other demonstrators participating in an anti-government protest demanding snap elections at the Slavija square, in Belgrade, Serbia, June 28, 2025. REUTERS/Djordje Kojadinovic BELGRADE (Reuters) -Tens of thousands of students and anti-corruption protesters rallied in Belgrade on Saturday, demanding snap elections and an end to the 12-year rule of President Aleksandar Vucic. Police deployed scores of officers in riot gear around government buildings, parliament and nearby Pionirski Park, where throngs of Vucic's backers from across the country gathered in a counter-protest. Months of protests across the country, including university shutdowns, have rattled Vucic, a populist, whose second term ends in 2027, when there are also parliamentary elections scheduled. Vucic's opponents accuse him and his allies of ties to organised crime, violence against rivals and curbing media freedoms, something they deny. The student protest is set to last until 9 p.m. (1900 GMT) at Slavija Square and Nemanjina Avenue, where most of the government offices are located. The protesters, who want the government to heed their demands by the end of the protest, have pledged non-violence. Vucic has previously refused snap elections. His Progressive Party-led coalition holds 156 of 250 parliamentary seats. On Saturday, Vucic said unspecified "foreign powers" were behind the protest. He said police should be restrained, but warned that violence will not be tolerated. 'The country will be defended, and thugs will face justice,' he told reporters in Belgrade. Sladjana Lojanovic, 37, a farmer from the town of Sid in the north, said she came to support students. "The institutions have been usurped and ... there is a lot of corruption. Elections are the solution, but I don't think he (Vucic) will want to go peacefully," she told Reuters. In the days ahead of the protest, police arrested about a dozen anti-government activists, charging them with undermining the constitution and terrorism. All denied the charges. Protests by students, opposition, teachers, workers and farmers began last December after 16 people died on November 1 in a Novi Sad railway station roof collapse. Protesters blame corruption for the disaster. The Belgrade rally coincides with St. Vitus Day, venerated by most Serbs, which marks the 1389 Battle of Kosovo with Ottoman Turks. (Reporting by Aleksandar Vasovic and Ivana Sekularac; Editing by Andrew Heavens and Jane Merriman)
The Star
5 hours ago
- The Star
Trump wins as Supreme Court curbs judges, but may yet lose on birthright citizenship
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship - a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called "universal" injunctions. But the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, while announcing a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years deploying such relief, left enough room for the challengers to Trump's directive to try to prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality plays out. "I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect," said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions whose work the court's majority cited extensively in Friday's ruling. Trump's executive order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasized the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an "imperial" judiciary. Judges can provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. A HOST OF POLICIES That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government - many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on U.S. soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in "class-protective" injunctions. "Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal," Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference," said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. "We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed." The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. STATES CHALLENGE DIRECTIVE The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. "As the majority recognizes, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups," Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, "recognized that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm - which is true, and has always been true, in our case." Platkin committed to "keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War" of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. "The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as U.S. citizens," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. (Reporting by Andrew Chung; Additional reporting by John Kruzel, Nate Raymond, Jan Wolfe and Trevor Hunnicutt; Editing by Will Dunham)
New Straits Times
6 hours ago
- New Straits Times
World is going through a new era of conflict escalation
AS India's defence chief attended an international security conference in Singapore in May, soon after India and Pakistan fought what many in South Asia now dub "the four-day war", he had a simple message: Both sides expect to do it all again. However, Indian Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan denied either nation had come close to the "nuclear threshold", describing a "lot of messaging" from both sides. There have been several dramatic examples of escalation in several global stand-offs over the past two months. Recent weeks have witnessed what is now referred to in Israel and Iran as their "12-day war". It ended last week with a US-brokered ceasefire. As events in Ukraine have shown, conflict between major nations can become normalised at speed — whether that means "just" an exchange of drones and missiles, or a more existential battle. More concerning still, such conflicts appear to have become more serious throughout the current decade, with plenty of room for further escalation. This month, that included an audacious set of Ukrainian-organised drone strikes on long-range bomber bases deep inside Russian territory, destroying multiple aircraft which, as well as striking Ukraine, have also been responsible for carrying the Kremlin's nuclear deterrent. Simmering in the background, meanwhile, is the largest and most dangerous confrontation of them all — that between the United States and China. US officials say Beijing has instructed its military to be prepared to move against Taiwan from 2027, potentially sparking a hugely wider conflict. Addressing senators on Tuesday, America's next top commanders in Europe and the Middle East were unanimous in their comments that the US strikes against Iran would strengthen Washington's hand when it came to handling Moscow and Beijing. Chinese media commentary was more mixed. Han Peng, head of state-run China Media Group's North American operations, said the US had shown weakness to the world by not wanting to get dragged into the Iran conflict due to its "strategic contraction". Other social media posts talked of how vulnerable Iran looked, with nationalist commentator Hu Xijn warning: "If one day we have to get involved in a war, we must be the best at it." On that front, the spectacle of multiple US B-2 bombers battering Iran's deepest-buried nuclear bunkers — having flown all the way from the US mainland apparently undetected — will not have gone unnoticed in Moscow or Beijing. Nor will President Trump's not so subtle implications that unless Iran backed down, similar weapons might be used to kill its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or other senior figures, wherever they might hide. None of America's adversaries have the ability to strike without warning in that way against hardened, deepened targets, and the B-2 — now being replaced by the more advanced B-21 — has no foreign equal. In reality, the threat of an overwhelming US military response, and hints of an accompanying switch of US policy to outright regime change or decapitation in Iran, coupled with the Israeli military success against Hizbollah and Hamas, appear to have forced Teheran to largely stand down. What that means in the longer term is another question. Behind the scenes and sometimes in public, US and allied officials say they are still assessing the implications of the success of Ukraine and Israel in infiltrating large numbers of short-range drones into Russia and Iran, respectively, for two spectacular attacks in recent weeks. According to Ukrainian officials, the drones were smuggled into Russia hidden inside prefabricated buildings on the back of trucks, with the Russian drivers unaware of what they were carrying until the drones were launched. Israel's use of drones on the first day of its campaign against Iran is even more unsettling for Western nations. Its drones were smuggled into Iran and, in some cases, assembled in secret there to strike multiple senior Iranian leaders and officials in their homes. As they met in The Hague last week for their annual summit, Nato officials and commanders would have considered what they must do to build their own defences to ensure that they do not prove vulnerable to a similar attack. Judging by reports in the Chinese press, military officials there are now working on the same.
