The United States came close to becoming a net crude exporter last week for the first time since World War II, as exports surged to near-record levels to satisfy demand from Asia and Europe, where buyers were scrambling to replace Middle Eastern supplies disrupted by the Iran conflict. The war involving the U.S., Israel, and Iran caused an unprecedented shock to global energy markets, with threats to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz halting roughly 20% of global oil and gas flows. As a result, refiners in affected regions turned to alternative sources, significantly increasing demand for U.S. crude, though analysts note exports are nearing capacity limits.
Net U.S. crude imports dropped to just 66,000 barrels per day last week—the lowest level since records began in 2001—while exports rose to 5.2 million bpd, a seven-month high. Historically, the U.S. was last a net crude exporter in 1943. Strong export growth reflects how buyers in Europe and Asia are reaching further afield for supply, with price differences offsetting shipping costs. Countries like Greece have recently begun importing U.S. crude for the first time, and major buyers include the Netherlands, Japan, France, Germany, and South Korea. Nearly half of U.S. exports went to Europe, while Asia’s share has grown significantly.
Meanwhile, U.S. imports fell sharply, partly because domestic refineries rely on heavier crude than what the U.S. typically produces. A widening price gap—driven by a surge in Brent crude relative to West Texas Intermediate—has made U.S. oil more attractive overseas while reducing domestic demand for imports. Spot prices for crude deliveries to Europe and Africa have also hit record highs.
Despite strong demand, U.S. export growth is approaching logistical limits. Exports may average around 5.2 million bpd in April, close to the estimated maximum capacity of about 6 million bpd, constrained by pipeline infrastructure and tanker availability. Although releasing medium sour crude from strategic reserves could free up more light crude for export, higher shipping costs and limited tanker supply could dampen further growth. About 80 empty supertankers were reportedly heading to the Gulf of Mexico, likely to load crude in the coming weeks.
Oil prices declined for a second consecutive day on Wednesday as expectations grew that peace talks between the U.S. and Iran could resume, potentially restoring supply from the Middle East that has been disrupted by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
Brent crude slipped 0.55% to $94.27 per barrel after a sharp 4.6% drop in the previous session, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate fell 1.1% to $90.24 following an even steeper 7.9% decline earlier.
Investor sentiment improved after President Donald Trump suggested that negotiations to end the conflict involving the U.S., Israel, and Iran could restart in Pakistan within days. The earlier breakdown in talks had led Washington to impose a blockade on Iranian ports, but renewed diplomatic hopes are raising expectations that oil and fuel flows could eventually resume.
The conflict has effectively shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial route for transporting crude and refined products from the Gulf to global markets, particularly in Asia and Europe. Although a ceasefire has been in place for two weeks, shipping activity remains severely limited, with vessel traffic far below pre-war levels.
On Tuesday, a U.S. warship reportedly prevented two oil tankers from departing Iran, underscoring ongoing disruptions. Analysts at the Schork Group noted that while diplomatic developments hint at easing restrictions, actual conditions on the ground remain unstable, leaving markets focused on the risk of supply disruptions rather than a full recovery.
Further tightening supply concerns, U.S. officials indicated that sanctions waivers on Iranian oil shipments will not be renewed, and a similar waiver for Russian oil has already expired.
Later in the day, attention will turn to U.S. inventory data from the Energy Information Administration. Expectations are for a modest increase in crude stockpiles, alongside declines in gasoline and distillate inventories. Meanwhile, preliminary data from the American Petroleum Institute suggested that crude inventories rose for a third straight week.
U.S. President Donald Trump said Sunday evening that he was unconcerned about whether Iran would return to negotiations after ceasefire talks over the weekend failed to produce an agreement.
He also confirmed that the United States intends to impose a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz starting Monday morning, accusing Iran of failing to honor its commitment to reopen the vital shipping route. Speaking to reporters at Joint Base Andrews, Trump stated that the U.S. would be fine even if Iran chose not to resume talks.
His remarks followed a report indicating that several countries are attempting to restart diplomatic efforts after lengthy discussions in Islamabad ended without a deal. Despite the breakdown, sources suggested that further negotiations could take place within days, while regional governments are working with Washington to extend a fragile two-week ceasefire.
The Islamabad meeting represented the highest-level direct engagement between U.S. and Iranian officials since 1979, with 21 hours of talks concluding without progress. Vice President JD Vance said the U.S. had clearly outlined its conditions, but Iran declined to accept them.
U.S. demands reportedly included ending uranium enrichment entirely, dismantling key nuclear facilities, surrendering enriched materials, reopening the Strait of Hormuz without fees, promoting broader regional stability, and ceasing support for groups such as Hezbollah and the Houthis. Iran, however, proposed limited enrichment or reducing its stockpile, but the two sides failed to reach a compromise.
In response to Trump’s blockade announcement, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf warned that Iran would not back down under pressure, stating that any confrontation would be met with force.
The U.S. plans to enforce the blockade on all vessels entering or leaving Iranian ports from 10 a.m. ET on April 13, covering areas along the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. It remains unclear whether U.S. allies will participate. Trump also criticized NATO for its lack of involvement and said Washington is reassessing its relationship with the alliance.
Oil prices rose on Friday amid renewed concerns over supply disruptions from Saudi Arabia and continued minimal tanker movement through the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz.
Despite the gains, crude was still on track for a weekly decline as market fears eased slightly following a fragile two-week ceasefire between the United States and Iran. At the same time, Israel indicated a possible diplomatic shift, expressing readiness to start direct negotiations with Lebanon soon.
Brent crude increased by $0.96, or 1%, to $96.88 per barrel at 0604 GMT, while West Texas Intermediate (WTI) gained $0.78, or 0.80%, reaching $98.65 per barrel.
Both benchmarks are down roughly 11% so far this week, marking their steepest weekly drop since June 2025, when earlier Israeli-U.S. strikes on Iran were paused.
According to Saudi Arabia’s state news agency SPA, citing the Ministry of Energy, attacks on key energy infrastructure have reduced the kingdom’s oil output capacity by about 600,000 barrels per day and cut throughput on the East-West Pipeline by approximately 700,000 barrels per day.
Analysts at ANZ noted that these developments have intensified concerns about further supply disruptions.
Shipping activity through the Strait of Hormuz remained below 10% of normal levels on Thursday, despite the ceasefire, as Iran asserted control by instructing vessels to stay within its territorial waters.
Although Iran and the U.S. agreed to a two-week ceasefire mediated by Pakistan, clashes reportedly continued afterward.
Experts suggest Pakistan may attempt to broker a longer-term agreement, but its ability to enforce the reopening of the waterway remains limited.
A Tehran official also told Reuters that Iran is seeking to impose transit fees on ships passing through the Strait under any peace arrangement, an idea opposed by Western governments and the U.N. shipping agency.
The conflict, which began on February 28 following U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iran, has effectively disrupted one of the world’s most important energy corridors.
Energy consultant John Paisie of Stratas Advisors warned that Brent crude could surge to $190 per barrel if current shipping constraints persist, though prices would be more contained if flows improve, albeit still above pre-war levels.
Mukesh Sahdev, CEO of XAnalysts, emphasized that the critical issue is not whether the Strait of Hormuz reopens, but how quickly normal oil flows can resume.
Meanwhile, JPMorgan estimated that around 50 energy infrastructure sites across the Gulf have been damaged by drone and missile attacks since the conflict began, with approximately 2.4 million barrels per day of refining capacity taken offline.
The dollar stayed fragile on Thursday following broad losses, as investors closely watched whether the uneasy ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran would hold. The truce appeared uncertain, with Israel continuing its conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Tehran accusing both Washington and Tel Aviv of breaching the agreement, calling further peace talks unreasonable. Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz remained restricted, with ships requiring permits to pass, prompting higher oil prices as traders awaited clearer conditions.
U.S. President Donald Trump said American military forces would remain deployed around Iran until the terms of the deal were fully met. Analysts noted growing skepticism over whether the ceasefire could last or even be finalized. The dollar index was largely unchanged at 99.07, while the euro dipped slightly, sterling edged higher, and the yen weakened after giving back earlier gains.
The prolonged Middle East tensions have fueled expectations of more expansionary fiscal policy, contributing to yen weakness. Markets are currently pricing in a moderate chance of a Bank of Japan rate hike later this month, though this outlook could shift if the ceasefire collapses. Japan’s weakening consumer confidence and ongoing economic concerns tied to the conflict further complicate the central bank’s decision.
BOJ Governor Kazuo Ueda reiterated that real interest rates remain negative, keeping financial conditions loose. The dollar has benefited overall from the conflict, partly because the U.S. is a net energy exporter, unlike many oil-importing economies such as Japan and parts of Europe.
The five-week conflict has disrupted global energy supplies significantly, and despite the ceasefire, Iran retains increased influence over shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Upcoming U.S. economic data, including personal spending and inflation measures, could influence the dollar’s direction, with strong figures potentially supporting a rebound.
Elsewhere, the Australian dollar edged lower, the New Zealand dollar gained slightly, and cryptocurrencies declined, with bitcoin and Ethereum both posting losses.
Markets have rebounded strongly after President Donald Trump chose to halt military action against Iran, but improved risk sentiment doesn’t change the bigger picture—oil prices are likely to stay elevated.
A clear relief rally is underway. US equity futures jumped almost immediately following the announcement of a two-week pause, with the Dow, S&P 500, and Nasdaq-100 all moving sharply higher. Meanwhile, oil prices, which had surged on fears of supply disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, retreated as traders quickly unwound worst-case positions.
The speed of the reaction highlights how markets had been positioned for escalation. Defensive strategies were widespread, volatility was high, and crude prices had already priced in a significant geopolitical premium. Removing even part of that risk triggered a rapid reversal.
This strong rally also reflects how stretched investor sentiment had become. Markets were preparing for a scenario where a substantial share of global oil supply could be disrupted. Even a temporary easing of those fears prompted a swift shift back into equities.
Equity markets had already hinted at a possible de-escalation. Despite increasingly aggressive rhetoric, indices had begun to stabilize, suggesting investors anticipated some form of pause. The confirmation has now accelerated the move back into risk assets.
Technology stocks are expected to lead the recovery. The sector had been hit hardest by rising yields and risk aversion, but slightly lower oil prices help ease inflation concerns, supporting valuations—especially for large-cap and AI-driven companies.
Consumer sectors should also benefit quickly. Lower oil prices reduce fuel costs, boosting household purchasing power. Airlines, travel firms, and retailers are particularly well positioned to gain from improved sentiment and lower input expenses.
Financial stocks are also likely to rise. Greater stability encourages deal-making, strengthens capital markets activity, and eases pressure on credit conditions. Banks typically perform better when uncertainty declines and risk appetite increases.
Energy stocks, however, face a more mixed outlook. In the short term, falling crude prices may weigh on them. But underlying supply constraints remain unresolved, inventories are still tight, and geopolitical fragmentation continues to influence energy flows.
There’s a reason oil prices remain significantly higher this year. The risks go beyond the current conflict. Even if shipping through Hormuz resumes, it only provides temporary relief and does not fix deeper vulnerabilities in global energy supply chains.
As a result, oil is unlikely to fall back to previous lows anytime soon. A geopolitical premium is now built into prices, and traders will continue to factor in the risk of renewed disruptions.
Attention now turns to whether the two-week pause will hold. Temporary ceasefires often come with uncertainty, effectively starting a countdown. Markets will be watching closely to see if diplomacy can turn this into a longer-term solution.
Key factors include compliance with the pause, coordination over shipping routes, and the tone of ongoing negotiations. Meaningful progress could extend the rally further, lifting industrials, cyclical sectors, and emerging markets.
However, if diplomacy fails, sentiment could reverse quickly. Oil prices would likely surge again, volatility would return, and recent equity gains could be erased.
For now, investors are navigating a narrow path between opportunity and risk. The current rally is driven by reduced immediate fear, but underlying tensions remain unresolved—and energy markets continue to reflect that uncertainty.
Positioning for short-term gains may be reasonable, but any sustained upside will depend entirely on whether diplomatic efforts lead to lasting progress.
Bitcoin edged higher on Tuesday, recovering from earlier losses as risk appetite improved after Pakistan urged President Donald Trump to extend his deadline for Iran to reopen the vital Strait of Hormuz.
Market sentiment had previously been weighed down by stalled U.S.-Iran negotiations and Trump’s warning that Iran could face severe consequences if no agreement was reached by his deadline.
The world’s largest cryptocurrency was last trading 0.5% higher at $69,845.4 as of 17:43 ET (21:43 GMT).
Pakistan calls for a deadline extension and proposes a two-week ceasefire.
Pakistan, now a key intermediary between the U.S. and Iran, said diplomatic efforts to end the Middle East conflict are advancing steadily and could yield meaningful results in the near term.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif urged President Trump to extend his deadline by two weeks to give negotiations more time, while also calling on Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz for the same period as a goodwill gesture. He further appealed to all sides to observe a two-week ceasefire to create space for diplomacy and work toward a lasting resolution.
According to Reuters, Tehran is responding positively to the proposal, while Axios reported that Trump has been informed of Pakistan’s initiative, citing the White House press secretary.
Trump’s Tuesday night deadline approaches.
Earlier on Tuesday, Trump warned that “a whole civilization will die tonight,” while expressing reluctance but suggesting the outcome seemed likely. He had already threatened to strike Iran’s bridges and power infrastructure if no deal was reached by his 20:00 ET deadline.
He also insisted that any ceasefire must include Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which has effectively been closed since the conflict began, pushing global oil prices higher.
Reuters reported that Iran denied any negotiations with the U.S., accusing Washington of seeking surrender under pressure. Meanwhile, Iran’s Tasnim news agency said Tehran could target additional oil facilities, including those linked to Saudi Aramco, if U.S. attacks on energy infrastructure proceed.
An analyst at Nexo Dispatch noted that markets remain cautious rather than panicked, with investors waiting for the deadline to pass before taking a clearer stance.
Inflation data due later this week is in focus.
Bitcoin has increasingly moved in line with overall risk sentiment, as geopolitical tensions overshadow earlier optimism about diplomatic progress.
Attention is now shifting to upcoming U.S. economic data, particularly the March consumer price index due Friday. Rising energy costs tied to the Middle East conflict are expected to lift inflation, which could strengthen expectations that interest rates will stay higher for longer.
Such a backdrop may weigh on Bitcoin, as the asset typically underperforms in a high-rate environment.
According to Nexo’s Kalchev, ongoing energy-driven price pressures mean each inflation reading this week carries outsized importance for crypto—cooler data could revive hopes for rate cuts, while stronger figures would reinforce the higher-for-longer outlook.
Bitcoin ETFs record their largest daily inflows since February.
Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) recorded their largest daily inflows since late February on Monday, as investors positioned ahead of the Iran deadline.
The funds saw a total of $471.3 million in inflows, led by BlackRock’s IBIT with $181.9 million. Fidelity’s FBTC and ARKB followed, attracting $147.3 million and $118.8 million, respectively, according to SoSoValue. Notably, no ETF reported any outflows during the session.
Most altcoins also rebounded on Tuesday, moving in line with Bitcoin’s gains.
Ethereum edged up 0.1% to $2,141.62, while XRP rose slightly by 0.1% to $1.3366. Solana gained 1.7%, and Cardano increased 0.4%. Among meme tokens, Dogecoin advanced 1.6%.
Iran has prepared its reply to the proposed ceasefire terms, according to a foreign ministry spokesperson.
Iran has outlined its positions and demands in response to recent ceasefire proposals delivered through intermediaries, a foreign ministry spokesperson said Monday, stressing that negotiations cannot proceed under ultimatums or threats of war crimes.
Spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei noted that Tehran’s requirements—based on national interests—have already been communicated via intermediary channels, while earlier U.S. proposals, including a 15-point plan, were rejected as excessive.
He emphasized that clearly stating Iran’s legitimate demands should not be seen as compromise, but as confidence in defending its stance. Baghaei added that Iran has prepared its responses and will disclose further details in due course.
US and Iran consider a peace proposal as Trump warns of severe retaliation if the Strait remains closed.
The United States and Iran have received an outline for ending the conflict, but Tehran has refused to immediately reopen the Strait of Hormuz, even after Donald Trump warned of severe consequences if no deal is reached by Tuesday.
According to a source, the proposal follows a two-stage plan: an immediate ceasefire, followed by a broader agreement to be finalized within 15–20 days. Pakistan’s army chief, Asim Munir, has reportedly been in continuous contact with U.S. Vice President JD Vance, envoy Steve Witkoff, and Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araqchi.
Iran, however, has rejected reopening the Strait under a temporary truce and dismissed imposed deadlines, while also expressing doubts about Washington’s commitment to a lasting ceasefire.
Earlier, Axios reported that the U.S., Iran, and regional mediators were exploring a potential 45-day ceasefire as part of a phased deal toward ending the war.
Trump, posting on Truth Social, issued a deadline of Tuesday evening, threatening further strikes on Iran’s infrastructure if the Strait remains closed.
Meanwhile, airstrikes continued across the region, more than five weeks into the conflict involving the U.S., Israel, and Iran. Tehran has responded by effectively shutting the Strait—through which about 20% of global oil and gas flows—and launching attacks on Israel, U.S. bases, and energy sites in the Gulf.
Officials in the UAE emphasized that any agreement must ensure free passage through the Strait, warning that failing to curb Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities could lead to greater regional instability.
Despite repeated U.S. claims of weakening Iran’s military capacity, recent Iranian strikes on petrochemical facilities and vessels in Kuwait, Bahrain, and the UAE highlight its continued ability to retaliate.
The conflict has caused heavy casualties: thousands have died in Iran, including many civilians, while Israel and Lebanon have also suffered significant losses as fighting spreads, including clashes with Iran-backed Hezbollah forces.
For the first time, India’s mutual fund industry is now permitted to include silver within equity and hybrid portfolio structures, marking a significant shift in asset allocation options.
To put this into perspective, India is already the world’s most silver-intensive consumer market in bullion and investment demand. Silver imports reached a record 247.4 million ounces (Moz) in 2024, while holdings in silver ETFs surged about 195% year-on-year—from roughly 13 Moz at the end of 2023 to 38.6 Moz by the end of 2024, nearly tripling within a single year. This growth reflects a deeply rooted cultural preference for silver that is not matched in most Western markets.
Despite this strong demand base, India’s large institutional capital pools previously had no scalable or direct route to allocate to silver ETFs through standard equity and hybrid fund structures.
As of April 1, 2026, that constraint has been lifted.
What SEBI Has Changed and Why It Is Important
India’s Securities and Exchange Board of India has officially introduced two linked reforms today, reshaping the way mutual funds in India are able to invest in silver.
The valuation change is largely technical but still important: funds benchmarked to the London price previously traded at a persistent divergence from actual silver prices in Mumbai. That spread acted as a structural barrier to institutional participation. Its removal effectively eliminates an arbitrage that had made silver ETF exposure in India less precise for fund managers.
The allocation change, however, is the more consequential structural shift.
India’s mutual fund industry manages around ₹82 trillion (about $950 billion) in assets under management as of February 2026. Equity and hybrid schemes form the largest segment. Before this reform, these schemes were not permitted to allocate to silver at all. The new framework changes that, though access is limited to the residual allocation bucket—assets left after meeting core equity or hybrid mandates—capped at 35% and shared among gold, InvITs, and debt instruments as competing options.
To put the scale in perspective:
A 0.1% allocation from equity and hybrid AUM into silver ETFs would translate to roughly $950 million in new demand, or about 13 Moz at current prices.
A 0.5% allocation would imply around $4.75 billion, or approximately 65 Moz.
A 1.0% allocation would equate to about $9.5 billion, or roughly 130 Moz.
These figures represent potential scale rather than immediate inflows; actual deployment will depend on how quickly fund managers adopt the new flexibility and is expected to unfold gradually. Moreover, this is a simplified upper-bound illustration, as silver must compete within the residual bucket alongside other asset classes such as gold, InvITs, and debt. Analysts cited by the Economic Times suggest most equity schemes are unlikely to fully utilize the 35% cap and will instead treat precious metals as a tactical, not structural, allocation.
Even so, when set against a sixth consecutive structural silver deficit projected at around 67 Moz by Metals Focus and the Silver Institute, even conservative participation levels could be material relative to the underlying supply shortfall.
The growth trend that was already in motion
What makes this reform significant is the existing momentum it builds upon. Even before institutional access was expanded, Indian retail investors were already fueling strong growth in silver ETPs:
That nearly threefold increase between 2023 and 2024—and almost fivefold growth over two years—was driven entirely by retail investors and fund categories that already had permission to hold silver. The institutional equity and hybrid segment contributed nothing to that expansion.
The SEBI reform today layers institutional access onto a base that was already accelerating at a 63% annual growth rate before 2024, before surging 195% in 2024 alone. The key question is no longer whether institutional capital will eventually flow into silver through this channel, but how quickly fund managers begin acting on a mandate that did not exist until now.
Why Institutional Flows Behave Differently
Retail silver demand in India is inherently cyclical and seasonal. Wedding seasons drive jewelry and silverware purchases, while festivals spur buying of coins and bars. This demand is substantial—reflected in 247.4 Moz of imports in 2024—but it fluctuates strongly with the calendar.
Institutional allocations operate on a different mechanism. Once a fund’s mandate includes silver ETFs, exposure is expressed as a portfolio weight and rebalanced systematically over time. It does not switch off after festivals, weaken during sentiment downturns, or disappear in corrections. The first clear signal of adoption will likely appear in AMFI monthly flow data, which tracks how mutual funds are reallocating across asset classes, showing whether managers are actively implementing the new framework or taking a cautious, wait-and-see approach.
The structural significance, therefore, is not immediate multi-billion-dollar inflows. It is the creation of a permanent allocation channel in a market that already combines the world’s largest physical silver demand base with a rapidly expanding institutional asset management system.
The SEBI reform is one component. The broader story is the convergence of multiple catalysts within a very short time window.
Gold prices declined in Asian trading on Thursday, ending a four-session rally as markets responded to renewed escalation signals from U.S. President Donald Trump regarding the Iran conflict.
Spot gold was last down 1.4% at $4,693.12 per ounce as of 22:21 ET (02:21 GMT), after briefly reaching an intraday high of $4,800.58. U.S. gold futures also fell nearly 2% to $4,721.80 per ounce.
Market sentiment shifted after Trump stated in a televised address that the U.S. would intensify military action against Iran over the next “two to three weeks,” reaffirming Washington’s position on blocking Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He added, “We’re going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We’re going to bring them back to the Stone Ages where they belong.”
The comments contrasted with earlier remarks this week suggesting the U.S. could withdraw from the conflict within a similar timeframe, even without a formal agreement.
Financial markets have remained highly reactive to changing rhetoric on the conflict as investors reassess geopolitical risk. Oil prices rebounded following Trump’s remarks, raising concerns about inflationary pressures that could keep interest rates higher for longer and reduce demand for non-yielding assets like gold.
The U.S. dollar also strengthened after two consecutive losing sessions, further weighing on gold by making it more expensive for foreign buyers.
Investors are now focused on upcoming U.S. jobs data due Friday for signals on the Federal Reserve’s policy direction, a key driver for precious metals.
Elsewhere in metals, silver dropped 3.2% to $72.77 per ounce, while platinum slipped 1.7% to $1,934.60 per ounce.
Oil jumped over 4% on escalation fears.
Oil prices surged by more than $4 on Thursday after U.S. President Donald Trump said the United States would continue military strikes against Iran, including energy and oil infrastructure, over the coming weeks, while offering no clear timeline for ending the conflict.
Brent crude futures jumped $4.88, or 4.8%, to $106.04 per barrel at 0200 GMT, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude rose $4.17, or 4.2%, to $104.29 per barrel.
The rally followed earlier weakness, as both benchmarks had dropped by more than $1 earlier in the session ahead of Trump’s address and closed lower in the prior trading day.
In his televised national speech, Trump said U.S. forces had nearly achieved their objectives in the conflict with Iran and that the war was approaching its conclusion, though he did not specify a timeframe. “We are going to finish the job, and we’re going to finish it very fast. We’re getting very close,” he said.
Geopolitical risks in the region have escalated, with threats to maritime shipping increasing. On Wednesday, an oil tanker chartered by QatarEnergy was struck by an Iranian cruise missile in Qatari waters, according to the country’s defence ministry.
Meanwhile, the head of the International Energy Agency warned that supply disruptions are beginning to affect Europe’s economy, with the region having previously relied on pre-war contracted oil shipments.
Bitcoin edged slightly higher on Wednesday, trimming earlier gains but still holding just above flat as risk assets benefited from optimism over de-escalation in the Middle East. President Donald Trump stated that Iran’s new leadership had reportedly requested a ceasefire.
The world’s largest cryptocurrency had finished March in the prior session with a gain of nearly 2%, ending a five-month losing streak marked by significant declines.
Bitcoin was up 0.3% at $68,478.6 as of 17:26 ET (21:26 GMT).
Trump says Iran has asked for a ceasefire, but U.S. will only consider it once the Strait of Hormuz reopens.
Trump suggested a possible end to the conflict, claiming on Truth Social that “Iran’s New Regime President, much less radicalized and far more intelligent than his predecessors, has just asked the United States of America for a CEASEFIRE!”
He added that the U.S. would “consider” the request once the Strait of Hormuz is “open, free, and clear,” warning that until then, “we are blasting Iran into oblivion or, as they say, back to the Stone Ages.”
If verified by Iran, the statement would signal a notable step toward de-escalation, though uncertainty remains over the Strait of Hormuz—a key energy route handling about one-fifth of global oil and gas flows—which has been effectively disrupted since the conflict began, driving global oil prices higher.
The remarks followed Trump’s earlier comments on Tuesday that the U.S. planned to wind down military operations against Iran within two to three weeks, arguing that Washington had already met its objectives, including damaging Iran’s nuclear ambitions and contributing to regime change in Tehran.
He also suggested that Iran would not need to formally agree to a deal to end the war, leaving markets uncertain about the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Reports this week indicated the U.S. may leave any reopening effort to European and Gulf allies rather than take direct action.
Rising energy prices tied to the conflict have been a key inflation concern for markets throughout March, fueling expectations of a more hawkish stance from global central banks—an outcome typically negative for speculative assets such as cryptocurrencies.
Google research highlights potential cryptocurrency vulnerabilities linked to quantum computing.
In a recent white paper, Google researchers warned that cryptocurrencies may be more exposed to advances in quantum computing than previously believed. They noted that quantum machines could potentially undermine elliptic curve cryptography—the encryption method underlying Bitcoin.
Their analysis suggests that breaking this cryptographic system could require fewer than 500,000 physical qubits on a superconducting quantum computer, about 20 times lower than earlier estimates. Although such hardware does not yet exist in practice, the researchers cautioned it could become feasible by around 2029.
They also encouraged the crypto industry to begin preparing a shift toward post-quantum cryptographic systems to safeguard blockchain networks. The study included contributions from organizations such as Coinbase, the Stanford Institute for Blockchain Research, and the Ethereum Foundation.
Altcoins gain ground today as hopes of de-escalation in Iran tensions lift market sentiment.
Broader crypto markets climbed on expectations that the conflict could be winding down.
Ethereum (Ether) rose 2.7% to $2,159.79, while XRP gained 1.1% to $1.3550.
Solana traded slightly higher, and Cardano advanced 3.6%, while BNB slipped 0.4%.
In memecoins, Dogecoin added 0.8%, whereas $TRUMP declined 0.6%.
Despite a broadly flat-to-weaker March driven by war-related risk aversion, altcoins generally held up better than many other speculative assets.
A massive oil tanker near Dubai was struck by an Iranian attack following the latest threats from Trump.
Iran struck and set fire to a fully laden crude tanker near Dubai on Monday, as President Donald Trump warned Washington would destroy Iran’s energy infrastructure if Tehran failed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The targeted vessel, the Kuwait-flagged Al-Salmi, is the latest in a series of attacks on commercial shipping using missiles and drone strikes in the Gulf since U.S. and Israeli forces hit Iran on February 28.
The conflict, now a month old, has expanded across the Middle East, causing heavy casualties, disrupting energy flows, and raising fears of a global economic downturn. Oil prices briefly surged again following the attack on the tanker, which has a capacity of roughly 2 million barrels valued at over $200 million. Its owner, Kuwait Petroleum Corp, said the strike occurred early Tuesday, igniting a fire and damaging the hull, though no injuries were reported. Dubai authorities later confirmed the blaze had been contained after what they described as a drone strike.
Rising oil and fuel costs are beginning to strain U.S. households and pose a political challenge for Trump and Republicans ahead of November’s midterm elections, particularly after pledges to cut energy prices and boost domestic production. Gasoline prices in the U.S. climbed above $4 per gallon for the first time in more than three years, according to GasBuddy, as tighter global supply pushed crude above $101 per barrel.
Meanwhile, hostilities show no sign of easing, with concerns mounting over a broader regional war. Iran-aligned Houthi forces have launched missiles and drones at Israel, while Turkey reported intercepting a ballistic missile from Iran that briefly entered its airspace. Israel has carried out strikes on targets in Tehran and Hezbollah-linked sites in Beirut, with explosions reported across parts of the Iranian capital and power outages affecting some districts.
The Israeli military said four of its soldiers were killed in southern Lebanon, where recent incidents have also claimed the lives of UN peacekeepers. Iran’s military stated its latest wave of attacks targeted U.S. bases and Israeli positions across the region.
The U.S. has begun deploying thousands of troops from the 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East, signaling potential escalation even as diplomatic efforts continue. The White House said Trump aims to secure a deal with Iran before an April 6 deadline to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a key route for roughly one-fifth of global oil and LNG shipments.
While U.S. officials say talks are progressing, Iran has dismissed proposed terms as unrealistic, insisting it is focused on defense amid ongoing attacks. Trump reiterated both optimism for a deal and a renewed threat to destroy Iran’s energy facilities if no agreement is reached, though reports suggest he may be open to ending military operations even if the strait remains partially closed.
Oil prices later eased and equities recovered on hopes of de-escalation. Still, the administration is weighing further steps, including seeking financial contributions from Arab allies, as it requests an additional $200 billion in war funding—an effort likely to face resistance in Congress.
Oil and war fears dominate markets heading into an uncertain Q2.
Financial markets enter the second quarter on shaky ground, highly sensitive to war-related headlines. This environment raises the risk of deeper equity declines, while the sharp selloff in bonds may start to attract buyers.
Even if the conflict eases soon, investors believe lasting damage to Middle East energy infrastructure and persistently high oil prices will weigh on growth and keep inflation elevated. That combination could further pressure stocks, though if growth fears begin to outweigh inflation concerns, bonds may stage a recovery.
Seema Shah, chief global strategist at Principal Asset Management, noted that uncertainty dominates: it’s hard for investors to see beyond the constant flow of geopolitical news. While diversification into international equities remains appealing, she emphasized that U.S. exposure still plays an important role.
The Middle East conflict caps a volatile first quarter also shaped by U.S. geopolitical moves and rapid AI-driven disruption. Oil has been the standout performer, surging about 90% to above $100 a barrel, which has shaken bond markets and pushed expectations for higher interest rates.
Analysts surveyed by Reuters see oil ranging from $100 to $190 if supply disruptions persist, with an average forecast around $134. Meanwhile, prediction platform Polymarket assigns roughly a one-third chance of the war ending by mid-May and a 60% likelihood by late June.
Echoing the inflation surge of 2022, short-term borrowing costs in countries like Britain and Italy have jumped sharply, with notable moves also seen in U.S., German, and Japanese bonds. According to Societe Generale strategist Manish Kabra, the key factors for markets are how long the oil shock lasts and how central banks respond.
Since the war began, expectations for U.S. rate cuts this year have largely disappeared. In Europe and the UK, investors now anticipate rate hikes instead of easing, while hopes for monetary loosening in emerging markets have faded.
Kabra highlighted the upcoming U.S. Memorial Day weekend as a potential pressure point, as rising travel demand could intensify public and political focus on energy prices. Reflecting this backdrop, he has increased exposure to commodities in portfolios.
Bond markets have taken a hit, with yields rising sharply, but some investors see value emerging. Amundi, for instance, has added short-term eurozone government bonds and maintained positions in U.S. Treasuries, expecting central banks to look past short-term inflation spikes once the crisis stabilizes.
Similarly, Russell Investments sees bonds as more attractive than a few months ago and expects the dollar’s recent strength—up over 2% in March—to fade over time. Before the conflict, investors had been rotating away from U.S. assets, a trend that could resume if tensions ease.
Gold has slipped about 4% in March, as investors sell profitable positions to offset losses elsewhere, despite its usual role as an inflation hedge.
Equities, while initially resilient thanks to strong earnings and the tech sector, are now under pressure. The S&P 500 and Europe’s STOXX 600 have fallen roughly 9–10% from recent highs, and Japan’s Nikkei has dropped nearly 13% from its February peak.
Zurich Insurance strategist Guy Miller said his firm has shifted to an underweight position in equities as the economic outlook deteriorates. Data already points to weakening momentum, with U.S. consumer sentiment declining, German investor confidence dropping sharply, and business activity indicators hitting multi-month lows.
Although the U.S. benefits from a relatively strong economy and its status as an energy exporter, it is not immune. Prolonged high energy prices would still weigh on growth. The OECD has already warned that the global economy has been knocked off a stronger growth trajectory.
Miller concluded that this conflict differs from recent geopolitical shocks, which had limited market impact—this time, the implications for earnings, margins, and valuations are far more significant.
Gold prices edged up slightly as attention remains on the escalating Iran conflict.
Gold edged higher in Asian trading on Monday, recovering modestly after a volatile week, as investors continued to watch the risk of escalation in the U.S.–Israel conflict with Iran.
Spot gold gained 0.4% to $4,509.51 an ounce, with futures rising similarly to $4,537.40. Prices had swung sharply last week, dropping to around $4,000 before rebounding close to $4,500 by Friday.
Other precious metals were mixed, with silver slipping 0.9% while platinum advanced 1.8%.
Analysts at OCBC said the recent rebound in gold appears largely technical, following a steep decline of about 20% since the conflict began. While bearish pressure is easing and momentum indicators are improving, they cautioned that the recovery may struggle to hold unless prices break above key resistance levels at $4,624, $4,670, and $4,850 per ounce.
They also warned that persistently high energy prices could keep inflation elevated, potentially pushing Treasury yields higher and creating a less favorable environment for gold in the near term.
Meanwhile, geopolitical tensions remained high after Iran-backed Houthi forces in Yemen launched attacks on Israel over the weekend, raising fears of a broader conflict. Iran signaled readiness for a possible U.S. ground invasion, amid reports that Washington is deploying additional troops to the Middle East.
U.S. President Donald Trump said negotiations with Iran were progressing and a deal could be near, though he provided no clear timeline and warned that further strikes on Tehran remain possible. He also recently extended a deadline for potential attacks on Iran’s energy infrastructure into early April.
Oil prices jumped above $115 per barrel after Yemen’s Houthi forces launched an attack on Israel.
Oil prices surged in early Monday trading after Yemen’s Houthi group launched attacks on Israel, raising fears of a wider Middle East conflict.
Brent crude jumped 2.2% to $115.08 a barrel, after briefly spiking as high as $116.43.
The Iran-backed Houthis said they had fired multiple missiles at Israel and warned of further strikes, heightening concerns about escalation—especially given their ability to target vessels in the Red Sea.
Tensions remained elevated as Israeli forces struck targets in Tehran, while the U.S. deployed 3,500 troops to the region aboard the USS Tripoli. Iran also signaled readiness for a potential U.S. ground operation.
Oil prices have rallied sharply in March, with Brent up nearly 60%, driven by severe supply disruptions. Iran’s effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz—a route carrying about 20% of global oil supply—has intensified market fears.
While Pakistan has offered to host talks between Washington and Tehran following a U.S. ceasefire proposal, Iran has largely rejected direct negotiations and accused the U.S. of preparing for a ground invasion.
Donald Trump said the United States and Iran have been engaging both directly and through intermediaries, describing Iran’s new leadership as “very reasonable,” even as additional U.S. troops deployed to the region and Tehran warned it would not accept humiliation.
His comments came after Pakistan announced it was preparing to host potential talks between Washington and Tehran aimed at ending the month-long conflict. Trump expressed confidence a deal could be reached, though he acknowledged uncertainty.
He also suggested that recent strikes, including one that killed Ali Khamenei, had effectively resulted in regime change, noting that the new leadership appears more pragmatic.
The conflict, which began with an Israeli strike on February 28, has spread across the Middle East, causing heavy casualties, disrupting global energy supplies, and weighing on the world economy.
Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said regional discussions had focused on ending the war and possibly hosting U.S.-Iran negotiations in Islamabad, though it remains unclear if both sides will attend.
Meanwhile, Iran’s parliamentary speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf accused the U.S. of signaling negotiations while preparing for a potential ground invasion, warning that Iran would resist any attempt at forced submission.
The Pentagon has sent thousands of additional troops to the region, giving Washington the option of launching a ground offensive, while Israel has indicated it will continue strikes against Iranian military targets regardless of diplomatic efforts.
Recent Israeli airstrikes have targeted missile facilities and infrastructure across Iran, while Iranian retaliation has struck sites in Israel. The conflict has also disrupted key shipping routes, including the Strait of Hormuz, driving oil prices sharply higher and rattling global markets.
As tensions escalate, the arrival of more U.S. forces and the possibility of broader regional involvement—including attacks linked to Yemen’s Houthi forces—raise the risk of a prolonged and wider war.
Cuba seeks Vatican help to ease the U.S. oil embargo, the Washington Post reports.
Cuban officials have asked the Vatican to help convince the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump to relax its oil embargo, raising the issue in high-level meetings with Vatican representatives, including Pope Leo, the Washington Post reported Friday, citing sources familiar with the discussions.
Reuters said it could not immediately confirm the report, and the Vatican, the White House, and the Cuban government did not respond to requests for comment.
Havana and Washington began talks earlier this month as the embargo intensifies economic pressures on the Communist-led country, with some reports indicating the Trump administration may be aiming to remove President Miguel Díaz-Canel from power.
Oil edges higher but is still on track for its first weekly drop since the Iran conflict began.
Oil prices rose on Friday but were still set for their first weekly decline since February 9, after U.S. President Donald Trump extended a pause on strikes against Iran’s energy facilities. Despite the temporary restraint, investors remain cautious about the chances of a ceasefire in the month-long conflict.
Brent crude climbed $1.87 (1.73%) to $109.88 a barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) gained $1.57 (1.66%) to $96.05. Even so, both benchmarks were down on the week, with Brent slipping 2.1% and WTI losing 2.3%, though they have surged sharply since the conflict began.
Analysts noted that oil markets are being driven more by the potential duration of the war than short-term headlines, warning that any damage to infrastructure or prolonged fighting could push prices significantly higher. Trump has extended a deadline to April 6 for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face further action, while the U.S. continues to build up military presence in the region and considers targeting key Iranian oil assets.
Iran has rejected a U.S. proposal relayed via Pakistan, calling it unfair. Meanwhile, the conflict has removed around 11 million barrels per day from global supply, worsening an already tight market. Analysts say prices could fall quickly if tensions ease, but remain elevated overall—or even spike to $200—if the war drags on into late June, as countries increasingly draw on reserves and adjust demand.
The U.S. dollar rose slightly on Wednesday, rebounding from earlier losses as hopes for Middle East de-escalation faded after Iran rejected a U.S. ceasefire proposal.
At 17:45 ET (21:45 GMT), the U.S. Dollar Index—tracking the greenback against six major currencies—gained 0.2% to 99.62.
The United States has put forward a ceasefire proposal.
While there is some optimism that Washington and Tehran may be exploring ways to end the conflict, markets remain cautious as both sides continue to offer conflicting accounts of how negotiations are progressing.
Reportedly eager to find an exit from the war, President Donald Trump has backed a U.S. proposal outlining a 15-point peace plan to Iran. The plan not only calls for Tehran to dismantle its primary nuclear facilities but also urges the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz — a critical shipping route south of Iran that has been largely shut to tanker traffic in recent weeks. This disruption has pushed energy prices higher and raised concerns about global inflation.
According to Thierry Wizman, global FX and rates strategist at Macquarie, investor optimism was revived by news that the U.S. had presented concrete terms to Iran. However, he cautioned that a ceasefire is unlikely in the near term. Instead, the U.S. may escalate military pressure over the next couple of weeks to push Iran toward meaningful concessions, with major combat potentially reaching a turning point by mid-April. He described the situation as entering a third phase — one defined by both negotiation and conflict, rather than purely one or the other.
Wizman added that the possibility of renewed negotiations signals a more critical stage in the U.S.-Iran conflict. Initially driven by diplomacy, then by direct confrontation, the situation may now evolve into a blend of both. While this dual-track approach could help stabilize market sentiment compared to outright war, it also carries the risk of sharper downside if it fails to deliver lasting stability and security.
Iran has pushed back against the proposal.
On Wednesday morning, the Fars News Agency reported that Tehran does not accept a ceasefire, emphasizing that it seeks a complete end to the conflict rather than a temporary halt in fighting.
Later, Press TV stated that Iran would not allow the United States to dictate when the war should end, citing a senior political figure. According to the report, the official outlined five key demands from Tehran, including a full cessation of attacks as well as international recognition and guarantees of Iran’s authority over the Strait of Hormuz.
However, Axios later cited a U.S. official saying Washington had not received any formal communication from Iran rejecting the ceasefire plan.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also denied that negotiations with the U.S. were taking place, according to Reuters. While acknowledging that messages were being passed through intermediaries, he stressed that such exchanges should not be interpreted as formal talks.
In the energy market, Brent crude — the global benchmark — briefly dipped below $100 per barrel on Wednesday, though it remains significantly higher than the roughly $70 level seen before the conflict began in late February.
Rising concerns over energy-driven inflation have strengthened expectations that central banks worldwide may need to adopt a more hawkish policy stance. In Germany, ECB President Christine Lagarde indicated that further tightening could be justified even if the inflation spike proves temporary.
The euro and yen edged higher on Wednesday, while sterling drew attention following the latest UK inflation figures.
The euro saw a slight uptick, with EUR/USD hovering around 1.1560. At the same time, the Japanese yen strengthened, pushing USD/JPY down to 159.33.
Sterling remained largely flat, trading near 1.3365 against the dollar, but came into focus after the release of new consumer inflation data. The UK’s consumer price index rose 3% year-on-year in March, unchanged from February. Notably, the data does not yet reflect the impact of rising oil prices triggered by the Middle East conflict.
According to Sanjay Raja, chief UK economist at Deutsche Bank, the UK’s disinflation trend may be approaching a pause. He noted that February’s inflation reading is already outdated, as households and businesses are beginning to feel the effects of the Iran conflict, particularly through higher fuel costs. Further increases in fuel prices are expected, and even if the conflict ends quickly, energy bills — including electricity and gas — could still climb by double digits over the summer.
Gold rises on softer dollar, lower oil after U.S. proposal.
Gold surged more than 2% during Asian trading on Wednesday, driven by falling oil prices and a softer U.S. dollar. Hopes of a potential Middle East ceasefire eased inflation concerns, increasing the appeal of the metal.
Spot gold rose 2.3% to $4,577.55 per ounce, while U.S. gold futures climbed 4% to $4,611.70.
The move came as reports emerged that the United States had proposed a 15-point plan to Iran aimed at ending the conflict. President Donald Trump said negotiations were ongoing and noted that Iran appeared willing to reach a deal. However, Iranian officials denied any talks, underscoring continued uncertainty.
Oil prices dropped sharply after earlier gains fueled by supply disruption fears, with Brent crude slipping below $100 per barrel. This decline helped ease inflation expectations, reducing pressure on central banks to maintain high interest rates.
Lower energy prices also weighed on bond yields and the dollar—factors that typically support gold, which does not yield interest. The U.S. Dollar Index slipped 0.2% in early trading.
Gold had recently been under pressure due to rising oil prices and bond yields, which strengthened the dollar and triggered a broader selloff in precious metals.
Despite the rebound, analysts warned that volatility is likely to continue, as markets remain highly sensitive to developments in the Middle East.
Elsewhere, silver jumped 3.3% to $73.60 per ounce, and platinum rose 2.2% to $1,977.60.
Oil drops on Middle East ceasefire hopes.
Oil prices dropped about 4% on Wednesday as hopes of a potential ceasefire in the Middle East raised expectations that supply disruptions from the region could ease. The decline followed reports that the U.S. had delivered a 15-point proposal to Iran aimed at ending the conflict.
Brent crude fell $4.89 (4.7%) to $99.60 per barrel, after hitting a low of $97.57. U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) slipped $3.54 (3.8%) to $88.81, touching as low as $86.72. This came after both benchmarks had surged nearly 5% in the previous session before trimming gains amid volatile trading.
Analysts said growing optimism over a ceasefire, along with profit-taking, pressured prices. However, uncertainty over whether negotiations will succeed continues to limit further declines.
U.S. President Donald Trump stated that progress was being made in talks with Iran, while sources confirmed Washington had sent a detailed settlement plan. Reports also suggested the U.S. is pushing for a temporary ceasefire to facilitate discussions, including measures such as curbing Iran’s nuclear program and reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
Despite this, some analysts remain cautious, warning that Middle East developments will continue to drive price swings in the near term.
The conflict has severely disrupted oil and LNG shipments through the Strait of Hormuz—responsible for roughly one-fifth of global supply—creating what the International Energy Agency has described as an unprecedented supply shock.
Even if a ceasefire is reached and flows resume, experts say it is unclear how quickly production will fully recover, especially without confidence in a lasting agreement.
Meanwhile, diplomatic efforts continue, with Pakistan offering to host negotiations, and Iran indicating that non-hostile vessels may pass through the Strait if coordinated with its authorities. Still, military activity in the region persists, and the U.S. is reportedly preparing to deploy additional troops.
To offset disruptions, Saudi Arabia has ramped up exports via its Red Sea Yanbu port to nearly 4 million barrels per day.
In the U.S., inventory data added further pressure to prices, with crude stocks rising by 2.35 million barrels, gasoline up 528,000 barrels, and distillates increasing by 1.39 million barrels last week, according to industry estimates.
Bitcoin surged on Monday as investor appetite for risk improved amid hopes of easing tensions in the Middle East.
Donald Trump highlighted “productive” discussions with Iran and announced that the U.S. would delay planned strikes on Iranian energy facilities for five days. Following these remarks, Bitcoin climbed 4.5% to $70,947.6 after previously trading lower.
However, Iran’s Fars News Agency denied any form of communication with the U.S., stating that no direct or indirect talks had taken place. The report also suggested that Washington’s decision to postpone strikes came after Iran warned it would retaliate by targeting energy infrastructure across West Asia.
Donald Trump highlights “productive” talks, raising hopes for a potential end to the conflict.
Donald Trump claimed that the U.S. had held “productive” discussions with Iran, suggesting a potential path toward ending the conflict. In a social media post, he said both sides had made progress toward a “complete and total resolution” and announced a five-day delay in planned strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure.
However, officials in Tehran denied that any talks had taken place. Iran’s foreign ministry reiterated that its stance on the Strait of Hormuz and the conditions for ending the conflict remain unchanged.
Reports from The Wall Street Journal, citing Fars News Agency, also stated there had been no direct or indirect communication between the two sides. According to Fars, the U.S. decision to hold off on strikes came after Iran warned it would retaliate by targeting similar infrastructure across West Asia.
Trump later told reporters that the discussions had gone very well and that there was a strong possibility of reaching an agreement, though he emphasized that no outcome was guaranteed.
Meanwhile, Justin Wolfers from the University of Michigan highlighted the uncertainty facing financial markets—whether to trust U.S. statements about negotiations or Iran’s denials.
Earlier, Trump had warned that Iran must reopen the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours or face military action. In response, Tehran threatened to shut down the waterway entirely and target key energy and water infrastructure in Gulf countries if attacked.
Bitcoin outperforms gold as geopolitical tensions and interest rate concerns weigh more heavily on the precious metal.
Bitcoin has outperformed gold and other precious metals this month since the conflict began, with bullion attracting limited demand despite rising geopolitical tensions.
Bitcoin has gained nearly 6% in March, while spot gold has dropped around 17%. The precious metal came under pressure after hitting a record high in late January, triggering profit-taking and a broader unwinding of long positions.
Even with the escalation involving Iran, gold failed to see strong safe-haven inflows, as concerns over persistent inflation and higher interest rates outweighed its appeal. In contrast, Bitcoin benefited from improving U.S. regulatory sentiment and renewed buying interest after previously falling as much as 50% from its October peak.
However, on a year-to-date basis, gold still leads, rising about 2% compared to Bitcoin’s roughly 19% decline.
Across the broader crypto market, gains followed Bitcoin’s move higher after Donald Trump’s announcement. Ethereum climbed 5.6%, while XRP rose 4.3%. Other major tokens including BNB, Solana, and Cardano also posted gains, alongside memecoins like Dogecoin.
The U.S. dollar declined on Monday, giving up earlier gains as investors reacted to President Donald Trump’s remarks about “productive” discussions with Iran. By 17:15 ET (21:15 GMT), the dollar index—measuring the greenback against six major currencies—had dropped 0.5% to 99.13.
Optimism over easing tensions spreads across global markets.
Hopes of easing tensions spread across global markets. Wall Street posted strong gains, while oil prices plunged after Trump decided to delay missile strikes on key Iranian infrastructure, citing progress in talks with Tehran. In a social media update, he said discussions aimed at achieving a “complete and total resolution” to the conflict.
Trump noted that, based on the positive tone of the talks—which are expected to continue—he had ordered the Pentagon to postpone any military action against Iranian energy facilities for five days. However, Iranian state media denied that any direct negotiations had taken place with the U.S. Officials in Tehran maintained their stance on the Strait of Hormuz and reiterated that their conditions for ending the conflict remain unchanged.
Reports from the The Wall Street Journal, citing Iran’s Fars news agency, also indicated there had been no communication between the two sides. According to Fars, the U.S. decision to step back from targeting Iranian energy sites followed warnings from Iran about potential retaliation across West Asia.
Speaking to reporters, Trump said the talks had gone “very well” and suggested there was a serious chance of reaching an agreement, though he stopped short of making any guarantees.
Market analysts expressed uncertainty over how to interpret the situation. David Morrison from Trade Nation noted that the developments add volatility to trading, especially given the high stakes involved. He also suggested that the lack of clearly defined war objectives may allow the U.S. to step back while claiming success—though Iran has framed the move as a retreat following its warnings.
The euro, pound, and yen showed little movement.
In currency markets, the euro and pound showed little movement, while the yen remained steady. European markets ended higher, supported by optimism that reduced tensions could stabilize energy supplies. This is particularly important for Europe, which depends heavily on oil and gas from the Middle East.
Disruptions to the Strait of Hormuz—through which about 20% of global energy supply passes—as well as attacks on gas infrastructure in Qatar, have recently weighed on the region. Meanwhile, Japan’s currency has also been pressured by rising oil prices, as the country relies on crude imports passing through the same route.
The U.S. President, Donald Trump, intensified his administration’s military stance on Saturday by giving Tehran a 48-hour deadline to fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz. In a social media post, he warned that if Iran failed to eliminate threats to the vital waterway, it would face the “obliteration” of its power infrastructure, with a particular focus on its largest power plants.
This move comes after weeks of maritime disruption that have effectively brought shipping to a standstill in the world’s most critical oil chokepoint, where roughly 20% of global crude oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) typically passes.
Strategic infrastructure in focus
The latest warning from Donald Trump signals a shift in targeting strategy, expanding beyond military assets to include Iran’s domestic power grid in an effort to maximize pressure on its leadership.
Trump also pushed back against claims that the U.S. has fallen short of its initial objectives, asserting that the campaign is “weeks ahead of schedule” and has already significantly weakened Iran’s naval and air capabilities.
While the White House has indicated that Tehran may be open to negotiations, the President has publicly ruled out talks for now, instead insisting on the unconditional reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
A strike on Iran’s power plants would likely have consequences far beyond energy shortages at home. Such a move would point to a broader disruption of regional industrial capacity, making any diplomatic resolution increasingly difficult to achieve.
The “Hormuz chokepoint” and market volatility
The effective shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz has unleashed a major shock to global energy supply, as tanker movements have nearly halted and key Persian Gulf producers have been forced to cut output.
The 48-hour deadline set by Donald Trump has injected fresh urgency into global commodities markets. If no change occurs before it expires, a potential shift toward targeting civilian energy infrastructure could significantly alter the region’s risk premium for the rest of 2026.
On Saturday, Israel struck targets in Iran and Beirut as the U.S. sent thousands more Marines to the Middle East. President Donald Trump criticized NATO allies as “cowards” for hesitating to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Since the U.S. and Israel began attacks on Iran on February 28, over 2,000 people have died, and Americans are growing concerned the conflict could expand further in its fourth week. Israel said it targeted Hezbollah in Beirut while intensifying airstrikes against Iran-backed militias, marking the deadliest spillover since Hezbollah fired on Israel on March 2. Israel also launched new attacks on Tehran.
Key energy infrastructure in Iran and the Gulf has been hit, pushing oil prices up 50%, prompting companies like United Airlines to cut planned flights by 5% due to expected prolonged high fuel costs. The Strait of Hormuz, critical for a fifth of global oil and LNG, is largely closed to shipping. Allies have pledged “appropriate efforts” to ensure safe passage, but Germany and France insist fighting must stop first. Iran indicated it will allow Japanese-related vessels to pass.
To ease supply, the U.S. will temporarily waive sanctions to sell 140 million barrels of Iranian oil stranded by the conflict. In Beirut, Israel issued evacuation warnings before its attacks; over 1,000 people have been killed and more than a million displaced.
Israel launched multiple airstrikes on Tehran and central Iran, while Iran fired missiles in retaliation. As Muslims celebrated Eid al-Fitr and Iranians observed Nowruz, Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei praised unity and resistance, raising questions about his condition following the death of his father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in the early days of the war.
The U.S. plans to deploy 2,500 Marines with the amphibious ship Boxer, though the mission remains unclear. Polls show nearly two-thirds of Americans expect a large-scale U.S. ground war, yet only 7% support it. No decision has been made on deploying troops into Iran, though potential targets could include Iran’s coast or Kharg Island oil facilities. Trump has said the U.S. is close to achieving its goals of weakening Iran’s military and halting its nuclear ambitions and may scale back military operations.
The market is taking a breather on recent headlines, but the fundamental energy system is still disrupted, constrained, and far from normal. Interruptions in LNG and damage to infrastructure have turned what might have been a temporary flow shock into a long-term supply issue, likely keeping both oil and LNG prices elevated. Current relief rallies are fueled by short-term positioning and changing narratives rather than a lasting recovery, making this market one to trade actively rather than commit to for the long term.
The market is taking a breather. Netanyahu’s comments—talking about securing the Strait and neutralizing Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities—have soothed sentiment, suggesting the conflict might burn out sooner than feared. But even if the geopolitical chapter closes, the energy system doesn’t reset instantly. Repairing refineries, export terminals, and LNG infrastructure takes time, and confidence in shipping lanes cannot be rebuilt with statements alone. Brent remains above $105; calm on the surface, but the underlying disruption persists.
Oil dipped, sparking reflex rallies in equities, bonds, and volatility, as markets embraced the idea that the Strait might reopen and Iran’s enrichment and missile capacities are weakened. Relief rallies are thus more about positioning than a lasting recovery. Traders are playing the tape, not committing to the story.
The Gulf’s energy infrastructure has been directly hit. LNG outages aren’t temporary—they’re structural, keeping prices elevated even after headlines fade. The IRGC still has enough capability to cause damage, so the market remains tight. Brent dropping below $90 next month seems overly optimistic; elevated oil prices could persist for months.
Equities face a dilemma: hoping for normalization while input costs remain high and central banks stay firm. The bounce from lows is likely headline-driven short covering, not genuine repricing of risk.
Complicating matters, traders are entering one of the largest options expiries ever. With narratives unstable, any headline can trigger outsized moves as positioning resets in real time. Oil charts reflect this chaos: Brent spiked toward $119 on export rumors, then fell below $110 when denied, then drifted lower again on de-escalation headlines. It’s a market still on edge.
Yes, volatility eased, and the market can breathe for now. But the barrel remembers the fire, and the underlying disruptions remain.
What would happen if the U.S. stopped exporting WTI and Brent crude became available only through bids?
Yesterday, the Brent-WTI spread was the headline, and it set the tone for a conversation I had with a few veteran oil traders just before Washington denied any plans to ban U.S. crude exports. These are the people who’ve seen enough market cycles to distinguish a normal move from a market that’s beginning to think. As we ran through tail-risk scenarios, the discussion drifted into territory that felt increasingly uncomfortable.
This wasn’t the usual chatter about positioning, freight, or refinery runs. It was the kind of conversation where the scenario branches began to converge on outcomes that felt plausible—but alarming. I’m not sharing this to shock anyone, but it’s worth understanding what was being analyzed in the world of constant motion we call capital markets. The Brent-WTI blowout wasn’t just a price swing; it was the market quietly testing what could happen if the system itself started to fragment.
On the surface, it looked like a classic geopolitical squeeze: Middle East disruptions lifted Brent, while rising U.S. output weighed on WTI. Beneath the surface, though, a more structural concern emerged. What if the U.S. pulled back—by limiting exports or scaling down its role as the security backstop keeping energy flowing? The mechanics were simple but severe. WTI, being inland, depends on pipelines, storage, and export capacity. Brent, by contrast, is seaborne and priced assuming secure transit. As long as U.S. exports flowed, the arbitrage held, helping balance the global market. But if that valve closed even partially, the market effectively split in two.
Inside the U.S., crude would back up, storage would fill, refinery constraints would bite, and WTI would be forced to clear at a deeper discount. Outside the U.S., the opposite occurred: removing a few million barrels of flexible exports from a system already strained by Middle East risk made every waterborne barrel more valuable. Brent didn’t just rise from lost supply—it repriced the risk of getting oil from point A to point B. Layer in talk of U.S. troop withdrawals and reduced global security commitments, and the market started pricing something far more structural. This wasn’t about barrels alone; it was about the security architecture that enabled their movement.
Here’s where the real asymmetry appeared: the U.S. risked sitting on cheap, trapped crude, while Europe and Asia were forced into a bidding war for mobile supply at a time when mobility was less reliable. Asia felt it first through direct dependence on Middle East flows, Europe through prices and products—but both ended up paying for a world where oil wasn’t just produced, it was contested. The Brent-WTI spread ceased to be a simple arbitrage signal and became a stress indicator for a market increasingly pricing a disconnect between where oil sits and where it can actually go.
In that scenario, oil stops trading like a commodity and starts trading like a map of power: Brent becomes insured crude, WTI becomes stranded crude, and the rest of the world pays a premium for access.
Buying oil in Asia or jet fuel in Europe right now comes at record prices. Physical markets—where oil is traded as cargo on ships, railcars, or in storage—have surged faster than futures markets, as refiners and traders scramble to fill the massive supply gap caused by the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran.
The disruption, triggered by attacks on oil and gas facilities across the Middle East, is the largest ever in global energy, with Iran restricting traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a key route for 20% of the world’s oil. Dennis Kissler of BOK Financial warned that even if the strait reopens, logistics challenges will delay a supply recovery.
Oil, gas, and refined products are vital for transport, shipping, and manufacturing, so supply shocks can heavily impact economies and demand for months or even years. Gulf production cuts and export halts have removed roughly 12 million barrels per day—about 12% of global daily demand—which are hard to replace, according to Petro-Logistics.
Physical Market Spike While futures prices have risen steadily since late February, physical cargo prices have surged even more. Brent crude briefly hit $119 per barrel, later settling near $109, while Middle East Dubai crude reached a record $166.80. Goldman Sachs predicts Brent could surpass its 2008 peak of $147.50 if outages continue. European and African crude cargoes hit $120, and even previously discounted Russian barrels now exceed $100.
The Mediterranean market, calm until early this week, has risen as expectations for a quick Hormuz reopening fade. David Jorbenaze of ICIS noted that spot price differentials reveal a much tighter market than headline prices suggest.
Seeking Sour Crude Refiners are turning to substitutes for Middle Eastern medium-density, high-sulphur “sour” crude. Russian Urals crude, long discounted due to sanctions, recently traded above Brent in India for the first time. Norwegian Johan Sverdrup crude reached an $11.30 premium to Brent. U.S. crude prices rose, with Mars Sour in the Gulf of Mexico hitting $107.53, about $6 above U.S. crude, reflecting its similarity to Middle Eastern oil.
Transport fuels have climbed even higher: European jet fuel hit around $220 per barrel, diesel exceeded $200, and Asian gasoil margins topped $60 per barrel. Measures such as the IEA’s release of 400 million strategic barrels and U.S. sanction waivers for Russian oil may not suffice. As Jorbenaze emphasized, “The market ultimately runs on barrels moving, not barrels being announced.”
Oil slips as the U.S. and allies move to ease supply constraints and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Oil prices dipped on Friday as European nations and Japan offered to help secure safe shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, while the U.S. outlined measures to boost supply.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent indicated sanctions on Iranian oil stuck on tankers could soon be lifted, and further releases from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve were possible. Brent fell $1.36 (1.3%) to $107.29 a barrel, and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) dropped $1.92 (2.0%) to $94.22.
Despite Friday’s decline, Brent is on track for a nearly 4% weekly gain after Iran targeted Gulf energy facilities, forcing production cuts. WTI, however, is set for its first weekly drop in five weeks, down more than 4%.
Markets eased some “war premiums” as world leaders signaled restraint, though analysts warn that full recovery of tanker logistics through Hormuz could take time. Any new attacks or disruptions could push prices higher, while diplomatic engagement may limit spikes and unwind the war premium.
Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Japan issued a joint statement offering assistance to ensure safe passage through Hormuz, which handles 20% of global oil and LNG flows.
U.S. President Donald Trump reportedly told Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu not to strike Iranian energy facilities again. Meanwhile, North Dakota plans to increase crude output as wells restart and winter restrictions lift, though the pace will depend on oil prices and existing budgets.
Oil has climbed above $110 per barrel following direct strikes on key energy infrastructure in the Middle East, signaling a broader repricing of global risk that investors can no longer ignore.
Attacks on Iran’s South Pars gas field, significant damage reported at Qatar’s Ras Laffan LNG facility, and a vessel hit near the Strait of Hormuz point to a coordinated escalation rather than isolated events. Together, they highlight growing threats to both energy supply and critical trade routes.
The Strait of Hormuz alone handles about a fifth of global oil flows, along with a large share of LNG shipments, while Ras Laffan contributes roughly 20% of global LNG output. Disruptions at this scale quickly translate into higher energy costs, squeezed corporate margins, and slower economic growth.
Markets have responded, but likely not enough.
Parallels to the 1970s energy crises are becoming harder to ignore. Supply shocks of this magnitude tend to ripple across economies, embedding inflation and forcing a reassessment of risk across asset classes. Rising energy prices rarely stay confined to commodities—they spill over into transportation, manufacturing, and consumer prices, reshaping expectations.
Many portfolios built over the past decade have relied on assumptions of stable energy markets and smooth global trade. Those assumptions are now under strain. Investors may need to shift toward more resilient and diversified positioning.
Gold, for instance, has historically performed well during periods of geopolitical stress, reinforcing its role as a hedge. Hard assets tend to attract demand when uncertainty rises and currencies face pressure.
Energy exposure is also coming back into focus. Oil and gas producers—especially those outside immediate conflict zones—stand to benefit from tighter supply and higher prices. Investors underweight the sector may need to reconsider their positioning.
Broader commodities exposure is increasingly relevant as well. Higher energy costs feed into production and transportation expenses globally, strengthening the case for assets that perform in inflationary environments.
Sector allocation deserves careful review. Industries reliant on low fuel costs and efficient logistics—such as airlines and parts of heavy manufacturing—face growing pressure. Meanwhile, energy, defense, and infrastructure-related sectors are likely to see stronger demand as geopolitical risks rise.
Geographic diversification is becoming more critical. Economies heavily dependent on Middle Eastern energy, particularly across parts of Asia, are more exposed to disruptions. Expanding international exposure can help mitigate regional risk.
Currency dynamics are shifting alongside these trends. Energy-importing countries often see their currencies weaken as import costs rise, while the U.S. dollar and commodity-linked currencies tend to strengthen during periods of elevated oil prices and geopolitical tension.
A structural repricing of risk is clearly underway. Energy infrastructure is being directly targeted, and key transport routes are under strain—echoing past global shocks where supply disruptions had lasting economic consequences.
Investors who continue to position for a quick return to stability risk being caught off guard. The energy crises of the 1970s offer a useful precedent: prolonged inflation, shifting capital flows, and strong performance from diversified real assets.
In this environment, a disciplined and forward-looking strategy is essential. Reviewing exposure across asset classes, sectors, and geographies—and avoiding overreliance on any single outcome—can help portfolios better withstand what is shaping up to be a more volatile and uncertain global landscape.
Oil exports and production in the Middle East have plunged, wiping out more than 7–10 million barrels per day from global supply and triggering a significant physical shortage.
With supply tight and storage capacity limited, prices could climb to $150–$200+ per barrel, and some analysts caution that prolonged disruptions may drive even sharper spikes.
Even if the conflict subsides, a recovery is likely to be gradual, and any short-term relief won’t fully make up for the deficit, keeping prices elevated.
Just a month ago, any analyst predicting oil could surge to $200 per barrel would have been dismissed outright. Now, that scenario is increasingly being taken seriously—and for good reason.
Middle Eastern oil and fuel exports, which averaged over 25 million barrels per day in February, have plunged by nearly two-thirds by mid-March, according to data from Kpler and Vortexa. Even more concerning is production: across the region, output is being slashed, with wells not easily or quickly restarted. Limited storage is forcing producers to cut supply, and in some cases, oil is being stored offshore rather than delivered to buyers. Altogether, roughly a fifth of global oil supply is severely disrupted, and even if the conflict ended immediately, recovery would take time.
Production cuts are substantial: Iraq alone has reduced output by around 2.9 million barrels per day, while Saudi Arabia has cut between 2 and 2.5 million. The UAE and Kuwait have also made significant reductions, bringing total lost supply to over 7 million barrels daily. This stands in stark contrast to earlier expectations from the International Energy Agency, which had forecast a surplus this year. Instead, as much as 10 million barrels per day may now be offline.
With physical supply constrained, the market has little ability to respond to demand, pushing prices sharply higher and making them slow to fall even if conditions improve. Some analysts now see $150 oil as a baseline, with $200 or higher no longer out of the question. Others warn that prices could spike even further in a sustained shortage, as commodity markets tend to move dramatically under such conditions.
That said, not all forecasts are bullish. Some expect prices to retreat below $100 for Brent and $90 for WTI if the conflict ends quickly—though there are few signs of that happening. Even in a best-case scenario, restarting production would take months, meaning prices would likely remain elevated due to lingering supply constraints.
Temporary relief has come from increased availability of sanctioned Russian oil, with nearly 200 million barrels currently in transit globally. However, this is unlikely to fully offset the shortfall. Meanwhile, measures like China restricting fuel exports and cutting refining rates, or the potential restart of limited pipeline flows from Iraq and Kurdistan, are unlikely to significantly ease the imbalance.
What once seemed unthinkable—a $200 oil price—is now within the realm of possibility. Still, given the economic strain such levels would impose worldwide, there is hope that de-escalation efforts may eventually prevent the most extreme outcomes.
Trump is expected to pressure Japan to support the Iran conflict during a White House meeting.
Donald Trump is expected to use a White House meeting with Japan’s prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, to seek support for the war against Iran, putting Tokyo in a difficult position as it weighs how much assistance it can offer.
Although Trump has criticized allies for their limited backing of the U.S.-Israeli campaign—while also claiming the U.S. does not need help—he is still urging partners to contribute naval forces to clear mines and protect tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, which has been largely disrupted during the conflict.
The visit, originally intended to reinforce long-standing U.S.-Japan ties, has become more complicated. While Takaichi has advocated for a stronger military posture at home, public opposition to the Iran war has so far prevented Japan from committing to operations in the Gulf.
Meanwhile, other U.S. allies, including Germany, Italy, and Spain, have declined to join any mission in the region, frustrating Trump. Takaichi has stated that Japan has not received a formal request but is reviewing what actions might be possible within constitutional limits.
Analysts note the meeting could prove challenging for Takaichi, who had hoped to influence Trump’s approach to Asia policy—particularly regarding China—but may instead have to respond to immediate demands related to the Middle East.
Japan is also preparing for potential U.S. requests to help produce or co-develop missiles to replenish American stockpiles depleted by conflicts in Iran and Ukraine. At the same time, Tokyo’s diplomatic ties with Iran could offer a channel for mediation, though past efforts have failed.
In addition, Takaichi is expected to express Japan’s intention to join the “Golden Dome” missile defense initiative and announce new investments in the U.S., potentially including tens of billions of dollars in sectors such as energy and critical minerals, building on earlier commitments tied to easing trade tensions.
Oil prices climb after Iran launches attacks on energy infrastructure across the Middle East.
Oil prices climbed on Thursday, with Brent crude surging by as much as $5 per barrel after Iran launched attacks on energy infrastructure across the Middle East in response to a strike on the South Pars gas field—marking a significant escalation in its conflict with the United States and Israel. By 0400 GMT, Brent futures had gained $4.66, or 4.3%, to $112.04 a barrel, after earlier peaking at $112.86. Meanwhile, U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) rose 96 cents, or 1%, to $97.28, having previously jumped more than $3. Brent had already advanced 3.8% on Wednesday, while WTI ended nearly unchanged.
WTI has been trading at its widest discount to Brent in over a decade, driven by releases from U.S. strategic reserves and elevated shipping costs, while renewed strikes on Middle Eastern energy assets have lent additional support to Brent. Analysts noted that the intensifying conflict—targeted attacks on oil infrastructure and the loss of Iranian leadership—could lead to prolonged supply disruptions. They also pointed to the U.S. Federal Reserve’s decision to hold interest rates steady, accompanied by a hawkish outlook, as another factor heightening market concerns amid wartime conditions.
Further escalating tensions, QatarEnergy reported significant damage to its Ras Laffan LNG hub following Iranian missile strikes, while Saudi Arabia said it intercepted ballistic missiles and a drone targeting its gas facilities. Iran had issued evacuation warnings ahead of strikes on oil sites in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar, retaliating for earlier attacks on its own facilities in South Pars and Asaluyeh.
South Pars, part of the world’s largest natural gas field shared between Iran and Qatar, was hit in an attack attributed to Israel, though U.S. and Qatari involvement was denied by President Donald Trump. He warned that the U.S. would respond if Iran targeted Qatar and said Israel would refrain from further strikes unless provoked.
Market analysts expect oil prices to remain elevated as tensions show no signs of easing and the Strait of Hormuz remains at risk of disruption. Reports also suggest the U.S. is considering deploying additional troops to the region, with options including securing tanker routes through the Strait—potentially involving both naval and air forces, and possibly ground troops if necessary.
Oil prices declined during Wednesday’s Asian session, pulling back from recent gains after Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government agreed to restart crude exports via Turkey’s Ceyhan terminal.
The agreement helped ease some concerns over supply disruptions stemming from the U.S.-Israel conflict with Iran. However, Brent crude remained above $100 per barrel, as the war entered its third week with little indication of de-escalation.
Markets also stayed cautious ahead of the Federal Reserve’s policy decision later in the day, amid worries that persistent inflation—fueled in part by higher oil prices linked to the Iran conflict—could prompt a more hawkish stance.
By 00:18 ET (04:18 GMT), Brent futures had dropped 2.3% to $101.05 per barrel, while West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude fell 3.3% to $93.03 per barrel.
WTI faced additional pressure after data from the American Petroleum Institute showed U.S. crude inventories rose by 6.6 million barrels last week, defying expectations of a 0.6 million barrel draw. This data often signals a similar trend in official government figures, due later Wednesday.
On Tuesday, Iraq and Kurdish authorities finalized a deal to resume oil shipments to Turkey’s Ceyhan hub starting Wednesday. The move comes as major oil producers seek alternative export routes beyond the Strait of Hormuz, especially after Iran effectively blocked the critical passage earlier this month.
Iraq had reportedly aimed to export at least 100,000 barrels per day through Ceyhan, after shutting in around 70% of its production due to the conflict. Still, the volumes from Ceyhan are expected to cover only a small portion of the supply gap caused by disruptions in Hormuz.
Oil prices also eased after reports that the United Arab Emirates may support a U.S.-led initiative to secure shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran had largely halted traffic through the strait—which handles roughly 20% of global oil supply—in retaliation for U.S. and Israeli strikes.
The UAE could become the first country to back Washington’s efforts, though most allies have so far declined to participate. Meanwhile, tensions remain high, with Iran escalating attacks on vessels near Hormuz following strikes on a key export facility. Reports also indicated that Iranian security chief Ali Larijani was killed in an Israeli strike, raising the risk of further retaliation.
Despite the pullback, oil prices remain supported by ongoing supply concerns. Brent has surged more than 40% since the conflict began in late February. Analysts at OCBC expect crude prices to stay above $100 per barrel through at least mid-2026, citing the lack of clear prospects for easing tensions.
Oil prices to remain above $100/bbl
Oil prices are expected to stay above $100 per barrel in the near term, as the U.S.-Iran conflict shows little indication of easing, according to analysts at OCBC.
The bank noted that with the conflict now in its third week and no meaningful diplomatic progress, crude flows through the Strait of Hormuz remain heavily restricted, keeping global supply tight.
OCBC has revised its outlook, projecting Brent crude to hover around $100 per barrel until mid-2026—well above its earlier estimate of roughly $70—before gradually declining toward $70 by early 2027 as disruptions ease.
Analysts warned that prolonged shipping disruptions are forcing Gulf producers to cut output, increasing the likelihood that short-term supply issues could turn into more sustained losses.
Tanker activity in the Strait of Hormuz has dropped sharply due to security concerns, effectively disrupting a crucial route responsible for about 20% of global oil consumption.
Although some shipments have cautiously resumed following Iranian inspections and potential stockpile releases from the International Energy Agency, overall volumes remain significantly below normal.
OCBC added that mitigation efforts—such as rerouting through alternative pipelines, tapping strategic reserves, and ongoing Iranian exports—could replace up to 10 million barrels per day. However, this would still leave a notable supply shortfall if disruptions persist.
The bank concluded that oil markets are nearing a “moderately severe” supply shock scenario, with risks tilted toward further price increases if geopolitical tensions continue.
Oil jumps more than 2% as markets assess supply threats from the Iran conflict.
Oil prices rebounded over 2% early Tuesday, recovering part of the previous session’s losses as supply concerns intensified amid major disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz.
Brent crude climbed to around $102.69 a barrel, while WTI rose to about $95.92. The gains follow a sharp selloff in the prior session, when prices dropped after some tankers managed to pass through the key shipping route.
The Strait of Hormuz—responsible for roughly 20% of global oil and LNG trade—has been largely disrupted by the ongoing US-Israel conflict with Iran, now in its third week, heightening fears of supply shortages, rising energy costs, and persistent inflation.
Tensions remain elevated as several US allies declined calls to deploy naval escorts for tankers, while risks of further attacks on shipping continue to threaten stability in the region. Iran has also sought the release of seized Indian tankers as part of efforts to secure safe passage through the Gulf.
The disruption has already forced the UAE to cut oil output by more than half, tightening global supply. In response to rising energy costs, the International Energy Agency is considering additional releases from strategic reserves beyond the 400 million barrels already planned.
Meanwhile, major banks have raised their oil price forecasts, reflecting the risk of prolonged supply disruptions. Scenarios range from a quick resolution that pushes prices back toward $70 to an extended conflict that could drive Brent toward $85 or higher.
Security sources report that drones and rockets were launched at the US embassy in Baghdad.
Several rockets and at least five drones targeted the US embassy in Baghdad early Tuesday, in what Iraqi security sources described as the most severe attack since the US–Israel conflict with Iran began.
Witnesses saw multiple drones heading toward the compound, with air defenses intercepting some, while at least one hit inside the embassy, sparking fire and smoke. Blasts were also reported across the city.
The strike reflects escalating retaliation by Iran-backed militias against US interests in Iraq following the war that started on February 28.
In response, Iraqi forces have increased security across Baghdad, shutting down the fortified Green Zone that houses key government buildings and diplomatic missions.
Oil prices increased on Monday as the ongoing conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran continued to disrupt oil production and transportation across the Middle East, despite a call from Donald Trump for international cooperation to protect the strategic Strait of Hormuz.
Brent crude futures climbed by $2.30, or 2.2%, reaching $105.44 per barrel at 0903 GMT, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude rose $1.29, or 1.3%, to $100 per barrel.
Both benchmarks have jumped more than 40% this month, reaching their highest levels since 2022. The surge followed U.S.–Israeli strikes on Iran, which led Tehran to halt shipments through the Strait of Hormuz—an essential route for global energy trade—disrupting roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and LNG supplies.
On Monday, oil-loading activities were suspended at the UAE’s Fujairah port after a drone strike triggered a fire in the emirate’s petroleum industrial area, according to two sources who spoke to Reuters.
Fujairah, located outside the Strait of Hormuz, serves as an export hub for around 1 million barrels per day of the UAE’s flagship Murban crude oil, equivalent to roughly 1% of global oil demand.
The International Energy Agency warned on Thursday that the conflict in the Middle East is causing the most severe oil supply disruption on record, as major producers including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates have reduced output since the war began.
According to PVM analyst Tamas Varga, investors appear to understand that if just two weeks of disruption in the Strait of Hormuz have already caused significant damage to production, exports, and refining, a prolonged conflict could have far more serious consequences, particularly as global inventories continue to decline.
Analysts from ING said on Monday that recent U.S. strikes on Kharg Island over the weekend have heightened concerns about oil supply, as the majority of Iran’s crude exports are shipped through the island.
Although the attacks appeared to focus on military installations rather than energy infrastructure, ING noted that they still threaten supply stability. This is because Iranian crude is currently among the few oil flows still passing through the vital Strait of Hormuz.
During the weekend, Donald Trump warned that additional strikes could target Kharg Island—an export hub responsible for roughly 90% of Iran’s oil shipments—after U.S. forces hit military facilities there, prompting retaliatory actions from Tehran.
On Sunday, Trump called on other countries to assist in safeguarding this critical energy corridor and said that Washington was holding discussions with several nations about jointly monitoring and securing the strait.
Trump also stated that the United States remained in communication with Iran, though he expressed skepticism that Tehran was ready to engage in meaningful negotiations to bring the conflict to an end.
Meanwhile, the International Energy Agency announced on Sunday that more than 400 million barrels of strategic oil reserves would soon be released into the market—a record intervention intended to stabilize prices amid disruptions caused by the Middle East conflict.
According to the agency, reserves from countries in Asia and Oceania will be made available immediately, while supplies from Europe and the Americas are expected to enter the market by the end of March.
SEB analyst Meyersson said that as the conflict moves into its third week, the absence of a clear resolution is increasing global market anxiety about the possibility of an uncontrolled escalation.
However, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said on Sunday that he expected the war to end within the next few weeks, which could allow oil supplies to recover and energy prices to decline.
U.S. President Donald Trump warned that he could authorize strikes on Iran’s oil infrastructure on Kharg Island if Tehran continues attacks on vessels passing through the strategically crucial Strait of Hormuz. The threat added further uncertainty to global markets already facing one of the most significant supply disruptions in history.
Trump accompanied the warning with a social media message claiming that U.S. forces had “completely destroyed” military targets on Kharg Island. The island functions as the main export terminal for roughly 90% of Iran’s crude shipments and is located about 300 miles northwest of the Strait of Hormuz.
However, the president clarified that American strikes had not targeted Kharg’s oil infrastructure. He added that if Iran or any other party attempted to block the safe passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz, Washington could reconsider that restraint.
Trump also stated that Iran lacked the capability to defend itself against U.S. military action. In a post on Truth Social, he urged Iran’s armed forces and their allies to surrender, warning that continuing the conflict could further devastate the country.
Iran’s military responded on Saturday by warning that any attack on its oil or energy facilities would be met with retaliation against installations belonging to oil companies cooperating with the United States in the region, according to Iranian media reports.
Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency reported that more than 15 explosions were heard on Kharg Island during the U.S. strikes. Sources said the attacks hit air-defense systems, a naval installation, and airport infrastructure, while leaving oil facilities untouched.
Energy markets were closely monitoring whether the strikes had damaged Kharg Island’s complex network of pipelines, storage tanks, and export terminals. Even minor disruptions could further constrain global oil supply and intensify volatility in energy markets.
Elsewhere in the region, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced that it had carried out additional strikes against Israel in coordination with Lebanon’s Hezbollah, according to Iran’s Tasnim News Agency.
Meanwhile, the Israel Defense Forces said on Friday that its air force had attacked more than 200 targets across western and central Iran within the past 24 hours, including missile launchers, air-defense systems, and weapons manufacturing facilities.
The United States has also suffered losses. The U.S. military confirmed that all six crew members aboard a refueling aircraft that crashed in western Iraq had died.
According to The Wall Street Journal, citing U.S. officials, five U.S. Air Force tanker aircraft stationed at a base in Saudi Arabia were damaged in an Iranian missile strike and were undergoing repairs.
Gulf and Lebanon emerge as key flashpoints
Oil markets have experienced sharp price swings in response to Trump’s shifting comments about the potential duration of the conflict, which began on February 28 when large-scale U.S. and Israeli airstrikes targeted Iran. The fighting quickly expanded into a wider regional confrontation with major implications for global energy and financial markets.
Lebanon has become another focal point of the conflict, with Israeli forces and Hezbollah exchanging strikes in and around Beirut.
In addition to missile and drone attacks against Israel and U.S.-aligned Gulf states, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has attempted to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route that carries about 20% of the world’s fossil fuel supplies.
Trump said on Friday that the United States Navy would soon begin escorting oil tankers through the waterway.
Although he previously suggested the war might last only a few weeks, Trump declined to predict a timeline for its end, saying the conflict would continue for as long as necessary.
Despite the fighting, Iran has continued exporting crude oil while several Gulf producers have halted shipments due to concerns about potential Iranian attacks.
Satellite imagery reviewed by TankerTrackers.com showed multiple very large crude carriers loading oil at Kharg Island earlier in the week. Iran exported between 1.1 million and 1.5 million barrels per day from the start of the war through midweek.
Bob McNally, president of Rapidan Energy Group, said Trump’s remarks could push markets to focus on the possibility that the current energy disruption — already the largest on record — might worsen and persist longer than expected.
Some industry analysts doubt Kharg Island’s oil infrastructure will remain untouched. Josh Young, chief investment officer at Bison Interests, remarked that bombing the island without hitting its oil facilities would be pointless.
War spreads across the Middle East
Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, said in his first public remarks that the Strait of Hormuz would remain closed and warned neighboring countries to shut down U.S. military bases on their soil or risk becoming targets themselves.
European governments are now discussing measures to protect their interests. France has been consulting with European, Asian, and Gulf Arab partners on plans to deploy warships to escort commercial tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, according to French officials.
After nearly two weeks of fighting, about 2,000 people have been killed — the majority in Iran, with significant casualties also reported in Lebanon and increasing losses in Gulf states that have rarely been on the front lines of regional conflicts.
Millions of civilians have been displaced. In Lebanon, as Israeli airstrikes continued to hit the outskirts of Beirut, the country’s interior minister said authorities were struggling to accommodate the hundreds of thousands of people seeking refuge in the capital.
WTI declined after Australia’s Energy Minister Chris Bowen announced the release of 762 million liters of fuel from the country’s reserves. However, oil prices could climb again as the Strait of Hormuz remains closed amid intensifying tensions between the U.S., Israel, and Iran. Iran’s new supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei stated that keeping the strait shut should continue to serve as a “tool to pressure the enemy.”
West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude traded slightly lower during Asian trading hours on Friday, hovering around $95.20 per barrel after surging more than 9% in the previous session. Prices eased after Australia’s Energy Minister Chris Bowen announced that the country would release up to 762 million liters of fuel from strategic reserves and relax fuel stockholding rules to ease supply disruptions linked to the conflict with Iran.
The Australian government also plans to cut minimum fuel reserve requirements by as much as 20% in an effort to stabilize domestic supply. Nevertheless, oil prices could continue to climb as the Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed amid escalating tensions between the United States, Israel, and Iran.
Since the war began, U.S. crude prices have jumped more than 40%. The International Energy Agency (IEA) warned that the U.S.–Israeli conflict with Iran could be triggering the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market.
Reports indicate that officials from the U.S. Department of Defense and the National Security Council underestimated Iran’s willingness to shut down the Strait of Hormuz in response to U.S. military strikes while planning the operation. The waterway carries around one-fifth of global oil consumption, making it one of the most strategically vital shipping routes in the world. Any interruption to tanker traffic there can rapidly impact global energy markets.
In his first public remarks since assuming power, Iran’s new supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei said the closure of the Strait of Hormuz should remain a “tool to pressure the enemy.” He also warned that all U.S. military bases in the region should be shut down immediately or risk potential attacks.
President Donald Trump appears to be effectively controlling the pace and direction of the conflict, a point echoed by U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. For traders, this concentration of decision-making power is not entirely unfamiliar, as markets have grown accustomed to navigating policy shocks driven by Trump. In theory, when authority is concentrated in a single figure, it could narrow the range of possible outcomes.
In practice, however, the opposite may be happening. During most geopolitical crises, markets assess risks through institutional processes—cabinet deliberations, coalition coordination, and diplomatic negotiations. These structures allow traders to gradually build probability models for how events may unfold. This time, while the decision-making framework appears more centralized, the range of potential outcomes seems broader. When the decision loop runs through a single, highly unpredictable leader, markets struggle to rely on consistent messaging. Instead of clarity, price action begins to reflect personality, tone, and mood.
As a result, global financial markets are being influenced not only by economic fundamentals but also by political rhetoric and timing. Traders find themselves constantly reacting to headlines—whether from press briefings or social media—because a single comment can shift market positioning more quickly than traditional macroeconomic analysis.
This dynamic defined one of the week’s most chaotic trading sessions. Market movements were not driven by earnings revisions, macroeconomic releases, or the typical interaction between bond and equity markets. Instead, crude oil became the central driver of market sentiment, with every headline emerging from the Strait of Hormuz quickly rippling across equities, currencies, and safe-haven assets. When volatility spikes in energy markets, it rarely remains confined to commodities. Oil remains a critical component of the global economic system, meaning fluctuations in its price often transmit shocks across multiple asset classes.
The Asian trading session initially opened with cautious optimism. After Trump suggested the conflict might be approaching some form of resolution, crude prices moved sideways, well below the sharp volatility seen previously. For a short period, it appeared that markets might return to pricing economic fundamentals rather than reacting to geopolitical developments.
That sense of calm proved short-lived. Hegseth later warned that Tuesday could become the most intense day of strikes in the conflict. At that point, markets quickly reassessed the situation, realizing that the earlier calm might have been only a temporary pause before further escalation. As a result, the geopolitical risk premium rapidly returned to oil prices.
For traders, the oil market has effectively become the roulette ball—bouncing unpredictably as new headlines hit the market. The result is a trading environment that feels less like a traditional price discovery process and more like a casino table, with participants watching the wheel spin and trying to anticipate where the next move will land.
Follow the bouncing barrel
Overnight: After Donald Trump delivered a quasi “all-clear” tone the previous day, oil prices moved sideways during overnight trading, remaining well above the sharp lows seen during the earlier selloff.
09:00 ET: Reports that the International Energy Agency was convening a meeting to discuss the possibility of a coordinated Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) release pushed crude prices lower.
12:45 ET: U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright posted on social media that the U.S. military had escorted an oil tanker through the Strait of Hormuz, triggering a sharp drop in oil prices.
13:10 ET (approx.): Wright deleted the post shortly afterward. Journalists cited sources denying the escort operation, while Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officials also rejected the claim—prompting oil prices to rebound.
13:25 ET:CBS News reported that U.S. intelligence believed Iran may be laying mines in the Strait of Hormuz, sending crude prices sharply higher.
14:00 ET: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed there had been no tanker escort, which helped extend the upward move in oil.
14:20 ET: The International Energy Agency concluded its meeting without announcing any coordinated SPR release, allowing oil prices to climb further.
By the closing bell, the overall result appeared deceptively calm. West Texas Intermediate crude oil settled around $85 a barrel—technically lower than the previous close but essentially unchanged from levels seen when equities finished trading the day before. Anyone focusing only on the closing price would miss the real story. The session itself demonstrated how modern markets behave when geopolitics drives price action and information arrives in fragments rather than through formal policy announcements.
The options market, however, reveals the deeper dynamic. Volatility in crude rose again, and the skew in pricing has become pronounced. Investors are paying the largest premiums in years for call options on WTI futures relative to puts—an indication that traders remain uneasy about potential upside risks tied to disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz. In effect, the derivatives market is insuring against the possibility that the next headline could remove additional barrels from global supply. In an environment where tanker movements slow and supply routes tighten, the real threat is not yesterday’s price spike but the next one.
That anxiety is grounded in fundamentals. If disruptions in the Gulf expand—or simply persist longer than expected—oil prices would likely rise as more Middle Eastern supply faces shutdown risks and potential force majeure declarations. Even with diversion pipelines and strategic reserves acting as buffers, the scale of possible disruption clashes with a global market that still consumes more than 100 million barrels per day. While daily trading may appear dominated by headlines, the underlying arithmetic of missing supply continues to shape market expectations.
The uncertainty also spilled directly into equity markets. When crude prices fell earlier in the session, stocks briefly rallied as inflation concerns eased and interest-rate-sensitive sectors found support.
However, Asian and European equities remain particularly vulnerable because both regions are major energy importers. Markets have become highly sensitive to Brent crude oil once it moves above the $85 level. That threshold is deeply embedded not only in trader psychology but also within automated trading systems that now dominate market flows. When crude rises above that zone, systematic strategies, energy sensitivity models, and macro-risk algorithms often trigger a reflexive reaction, amplifying the feedback loop between oil and equities. In practical terms, the relationship becomes mechanical: higher oil prices tend to pressure Asian equities, while cooling crude prices allow stocks to stabilize.
Even in U.S. markets, the environment is not ideal for absorbing shocks. According to the Delta One desk at Goldman Sachs, liquidity conditions remain relatively thin. Depth in the S&P 500 order book sits near $4.53 million—around 25% below the 20-day average—while overall market trading volumes are also roughly 25% lower than typical levels. This means markets are attempting to interpret large macroeconomic signals with reduced liquidity, a situation that can amplify price swings whenever oil becomes the trigger.
In effect, the broader financial system spent the session taking cues from the crude market. When oil moves sharply, equity markets quickly react. While this correlation may weaken during calmer periods, it becomes dominant when the Strait of Hormuz turns into the world’s most important venue for price discovery in energy markets.
For traders, the lesson is clear. In stable environments, fundamentals dominate and models guide trading decisions. But during geopolitical crises—particularly those involving Middle Eastern energy supply—unexpected shocks become the primary driver. Information itself becomes the commodity being traded. Headlines, signals, and rumors can move prices as much as actual supply changes. When global risk perception hinges on a small number of political decisions—often shaped by figures such as Donald Trump—markets stop behaving like predictable equations and begin reacting more like mood indicators, capable of changing direction with a single statement or social media post.
Oil prices rebounded on Wednesday as investors questioned whether a planned large-scale release of strategic reserves by the International Energy Agency would be enough to offset potential supply disruptions caused by the U.S.–Israeli conflict with Iran.
Brent crude futures rose 59 cents, or 0.7%, to $88.39 a barrel by 07:27 GMT, while West Texas Intermediate crude oil gained 98 cents, or 1.2%, to $84.43 per barrel.
Both benchmarks had extended losses earlier in Asian trading after plunging more than 11% on Tuesday, despite U.S. crude initially jumping 5% at the market open.
According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, the proposed IEA release would surpass the 182 million barrels collectively released by member countries in 2022 following the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Analysts at Goldman Sachs said such a stockpile release could offset roughly 12 days of an estimated 15.4 million barrels-per-day disruption in Gulf exports.
Meanwhile, the conflict continued to escalate. The U.S. and Israel launched what both the Pentagon and Iranian sources described as the most intense airstrikes of the war on Tuesday. The United States Central Command also said the U.S. military had destroyed 16 Iranian mine-laying vessels near the Strait of Hormuz, after Donald Trump warned that any mines placed in the waterway must be removed immediately.
Some analysts remained skeptical that the reserve release would significantly ease market tensions. Suvro Sarkar, energy sector team lead at DBS Bank, said such moves were unlikely to solve the crisis, adding that oil prices would largely depend on how long the conflict with Iran continues. Strategic signals, including potential reserve releases, may help temper near-term price spikes, he added.
Leaders of the Group of Seven have also convened to discuss a coordinated emergency stockpile release. Emmanuel Macron is set to host a virtual meeting with other G7 leaders to assess the Middle East conflict’s impact on energy markets and possible responses.
Trump has repeatedly stated that the U.S. is prepared to escort oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz if necessary. However, sources told Reuters that the United States Navy has so far declined shipping industry requests for escorts, citing high security risks.
Supply concerns remain
Energy infrastructure disruptions have also added to supply worries. Abu Dhabi National Oil Company reportedly shut down its Ruwais refinery after a drone strike caused a fire at the complex.
At the same time, Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter, is attempting to increase shipments via the Red Sea. However, current export levels remain far below what would be needed to fully offset the decline in flows through the Strait of Hormuz. The kingdom is relying on the Red Sea port of Yanbu to boost shipments as neighbors such as Iraq, Kuwait, and the UAE have already reduced production.
Energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie estimates the war is currently cutting Gulf oil and refined product supplies by about 15 million barrels per day, a disruption that could potentially push crude prices as high as $150 per barrel.
Analysts at Morgan Stanley noted that even a quick resolution to the conflict could still leave energy markets facing several weeks of disruption.
Meanwhile, signs of strong demand also supported prices. Data from the American Petroleum Institute indicated that U.S. crude, gasoline, and distillate inventories all declined last week.
The U.S. dollar rally paused on Tuesday as investors evaluated signs that the joint U.S.–Israeli military campaign against Iran could be nearing its end.
The Dollar Index, which measures the greenback against a basket of six major currencies, fell 0.3% to 98.91 at 15:47 ET (19:47 GMT).
U.S. President Donald Trump suggested that the conflict in Iran—now ongoing for more than a week—could conclude “very soon.” However, he warned that further fighting could occur if Iran attempts to block shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial passage south of Iran that carries about one-fifth of global oil flows.
Despite these comments, the conflict has shown little sign of easing, with the United States launching its most intense airstrikes on Iran so far on Tuesday.
Concerns that prolonged disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz could drive global inflation higher had supported the dollar in recent days. Iran’s leadership reportedly warned it would not allow “one liter of oil” to pass through the chokepoint if U.S. and Israeli strikes continued. Still, Trump’s remarks appeared to boost market sentiment.
Analysts at ING, including Chris Turner and Francesco Pesole, said in a note that markets reversed course after an initially shaky start to the week.
“After a very shaky start, Monday proved to be a day of reversal for risk assets as President Trump hinted that military operations could end soon,” they wrote. “No one knows whether that will be the case, but Monday’s events show that the U.S. administration is more sensitive to energy than it seemed.”
However, the analysts added that oil supplies—currently stranded near the Strait of Hormuz or rerouted away from the region—would need to begin flowing normally again for the dollar’s pullback to continue.
Elsewhere in currency markets, EUR/USD slipped 0.2% to 1.1609, while GBP/USD declined 0.1% to 1.3414.
Yen remains stable in Asian trading
The Japanese yen remained relatively steady in Asian trading, with the USD/JPY pair edging up 0.2% to 158.07. The currency continued to face pressure from a stronger U.S. dollar and concerns that disruptions to energy supplies could weigh on Japan’s economy. Japan relies heavily on oil imports that pass through the Strait of Hormuz.
Revised gross domestic product data for the fourth quarter showed that Japan’s economy expanded more than previously estimated, supported by robust capital investment and stable consumer spending.
The figures indicated a degree of resilience in the Japanese economy, although exports remained under strain. Private consumption growth was also revised higher but stayed close to its long-term average of roughly 0.3% quarter-on-quarter.
This economic resilience may provide the Bank of Japan with more room to raise interest rates. However, the central bank is unlikely to tighten policy in the near term given heightened uncertainty in global markets.
Financial markets have begun acting as if the conflict involving Iran is nearing its conclusion. However, no diplomatic resolution has been reached, fighting continues, and several critical strategic issues remain unsettled.
Oil markets reflected the shift first.
Crude prices surged to roughly $120 per barrel at the peak of escalation fears. Within days, prices dropped sharply, falling back below $90 after remarks from U.S. President Donald Trump suggested the war could end “very soon,” even though he indicated hostilities might persist beyond the coming week.
Equity markets reacted quickly. U.S. stocks advanced, with the S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite both moving higher as investors returned to risk assets.
Asian markets soon followed. Major indices in Japan, South Korea, and Hong Kong rebounded after several cautious trading sessions dominated by geopolitical concerns.
These movements highlight how rapidly market sentiment can shift. Investors appear to be positioning for easing tensions in the Middle East, even though no ceasefire has been agreed upon and rhetoric from both sides remains confrontational.
By nature, financial markets look ahead. Prices attempt to anticipate future developments rather than simply reflect current conditions. Recent trading patterns suggest investors believe the worst escalation risks will remain contained. Oil falling below $90 while equities climb signals confidence that supply disruptions will be limited and that the conflict will not expand into a broader regional crisis. That confidence may ultimately prove correct. However, markets sometimes move ahead of geopolitical realities.
Energy markets offer a clear example of this sensitivity.
Iran produces around 3.2 million barrels of oil per day and sits beside the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow maritime passage through which roughly 20% of global oil consumption moves. Any perceived threat to this route tends to trigger immediate price surges. Traders initially rushed to price in disruption risks during the early stage of the conflict, pushing Brent crude more than 12% higher within days. The recent pullback illustrates how quickly geopolitical risk premiums can fade when expectations shift. Political signaling now plays a powerful role in shaping those expectations.
Comments from President Trump alone were enough to drive oil prices lower while lifting equity markets. Financial markets process political messaging almost instantly, adjusting prices well before underlying realities change. Modern trading technology accelerates this dynamic. Algorithmic systems monitor headlines and geopolitical developments in real time. Capital flows across asset classes within seconds as military developments, diplomatic statements, and political rhetoric are rapidly incorporated into market pricing. This speed magnifies every shift in sentiment.
Despite the market optimism, the strategic outlook remains uncertain. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps responded firmly to President Trump’s remarks, stating that the end of the war ultimately rests “in Iran’s hands.” Such statements highlight a fundamental truth: decisions in Tehran will shape the trajectory of the conflict just as much as decisions in Washington, D.C..
Another factor also deserves close attention from investors: Iran’s leadership transition. Mojtaba Khamenei now holds the role of Supreme Leader following the death of Ali Khamenei. Ultimate authority over Iran’s armed forces and the Revolutionary Guard flows through that position. Leadership changes within Iran have historically influenced strategic priorities, military posture, and diplomatic decision-making.
Global investors have little experience with Mojtaba Khamenei’s strategic outlook. His willingness to tolerate a prolonged confrontation with the United States and its allies remains uncertain. A longer conflict aimed at draining financial and military resources cannot be ruled out. For now, markets appear comfortable assuming tensions will ease. Falling oil prices and rising equities both reflect this belief. Risk assets rarely perform well when investors expect prolonged military escalation.
Yet geopolitical conflicts rarely unfold according to market expectations. Political incentives, domestic pressures, and strategic calculations often shape decisions in ways markets struggle to anticipate. Recent weeks have demonstrated how quickly global conditions can become volatile. Sudden geopolitical developments can overturn prevailing market assumptions within hours.
Investors therefore face a delicate balancing act. Markets reward forward-looking positioning, but ignoring geopolitical risks can be costly. At the same time, excessive confidence in early signals carries its own dangers.
Current market behavior suggests investors believe escalation risks will remain limited and that the conflict could cool sooner rather than later. That assumption may ultimately prove correct.
However, alternative scenarios remain possible. Military incidents, political miscalculations, or changes in leadership strategy could quickly alter the course of events, forcing markets to reassess their assumptions at speed.
Financial markets often move first and confirm later. Recent trading indicates investors are already treating the end of the Iran conflict as a likely outcome. Geopolitical developments, however, have yet to validate that expectation.
Gold prices increased during Asian trading on Tuesday but remained within a narrow range as investors looked for clearer signals about a potential de-escalation in the U.S.–Israel conflict with Iran.
The precious metal advanced alongside a broader improvement in market risk sentiment after U.S. President Donald Trump suggested the conflict with Iran could end soon and said Washington was also considering steps to help curb the recent surge in oil prices.
Spot gold climbed 0.8% to $5,175.48 per ounce as of 01:55 ET (05:55 GMT), while gold futures gained 1.6% to $5,184.79 per ounce. Spot prices had edged slightly higher on Monday after experiencing significant volatility throughout the session.
Gold stays within the $5,000–$5,200 range as safe-haven demand remains mixed.
Gold stayed firmly within the $5,000–$5,200 per ounce range set over the past week, as traders weighed a wave of uncertainty surrounding the global economy.
Although the conflict with Iran boosted safe-haven demand for gold, gains were limited by worries that the crisis could fuel inflation, potentially prompting more hawkish policies from major central banks.
Analysts at ANZ also pointed out that gold’s strong rally this year has faced bouts of profit-taking, as investors looked to raise liquidity during a sharp selloff in global equity markets.
Other precious metals moved higher on Tuesday, with spot silver climbing nearly 6% to $89.1915 per ounce, while spot platinum gained 0.7% to $2,201.48 per ounce. In the industrial metals market, LME copper futures rose 1.3% to $13,095.30 a tonne.
Trump signals Iran tensions may ease, boosting oil supply outlook.
Risk sentiment improved on Tuesday and oil prices declined after Donald Trump said several times on Monday that the war with Iran could soon come to an end. Trump also floated potential steps to reduce supply disruptions caused by the conflict, including temporarily easing sanctions on certain oil exporters, particularly Russia.
However, he did not provide a clear timeline for any de-escalation and continued to maintain a tough stance toward Tehran. Trump warned that the Islamic Republic would face severe consequences if it attempted to block the Strait of Hormuz.
“We will strike easily destroyable targets that would make it virtually impossible for Iran to rebuild as a nation again — death, fire and fury will follow,” Trump said.
Iran dismissed Trump’s statements and reiterated that it would continue blocking the Strait of Hormuz until attacks by the United States and Israel against Tehran cease.
The conflict entered its eleventh consecutive day on Tuesday, with tensions across the Middle East showing little sign of easing. A prolonged war is expected to keep supporting gold prices, as safe-haven demand remains strong amid rising inflation risks driven by disruptions in the oil market.
U.S. crude oil futures surged on Friday as the widening U.S.–Israeli conflict with Iran disrupted global oil supply expectations.
Brent crude settled at $92.69 per barrel, rising $7.28 or 8.5%, while West Texas Intermediate (WTI) climbed $9.89, or 12.2%, to close at $90.90 per barrel.
On a weekly basis, WTI jumped 35.6% and Brent gained about 27%, marking their strongest weekly advances since the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020.
For the second straight day, U.S. crude futures outperformed Brent as refiners around the world rushed to secure alternative oil supplies to offset potential disruptions from the Middle East.
According to UBS analyst Giovanni Staunovo, refiners and trading firms are actively seeking substitute barrels, with the United States — the world’s largest oil producer — emerging as a key supplier.
Janiv Shah, vice president of oil analytics at Rystad Energy, noted that several factors contributed to the wider gains in WTI compared with Brent. Strong refinery activity supported by attractive refining margins, along with favorable arbitrage opportunities for shipments to Europe, helped drive demand for U.S. crude.
Could oil exceed $100?
Qatar’s energy minister warned in an interview with the Financial Times that Gulf energy producers might halt exports within weeks if the conflict escalates further. Such a move, he suggested, could push oil prices as high as $150 per barrel.
John Kilduff, partner at Again Capital, said the situation is increasingly alarming. “The worst-case scenario is unfolding right in front of us,” Kilduff said, adding that forecasts of oil reaching $100 per barrel now appear increasingly realistic.
Oil prices began their sharp rally after the United States and Israel carried out strikes on Iran last Saturday, which prompted Iran to halt tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
Around 20% of the world’s daily oil supply normally passes through this key shipping route. With the strait effectively closed for seven days, roughly 140 million barrels of crude — equivalent to about 1.4 days of global demand — have been prevented from reaching international markets.
The conflict has expanded across major energy-producing regions in the Middle East, disrupting production and forcing several refineries and liquefied natural gas facilities to shut down.
UBS analyst Giovanni Staunovo said oil prices are likely to continue rising for as long as the strait remains closed. He noted that markets previously believed U.S. President Donald Trump might eventually scale back the conflict to avoid higher oil prices, but the longer the situation persists, the greater the perceived supply risk becomes.
In an interview with Reuters on Thursday, Trump said he was not worried about rising gasoline prices in the United States linked to the conflict, commenting that “if they rise, they rise.”
Earlier on Friday, oil prices briefly dropped by more than 1% after speculation that the U.S. Treasury Department might take steps to counter the surge in energy costs.
On Thursday, the Treasury issued waivers allowing companies to purchase sanctioned Russian oil. The first approvals were granted to Indian refiners, which have since bought millions of barrels of Russian crude.
All major asset classes were still showing positive year-to-date returns as of Friday’s close. However, market conditions can shift dramatically over a single weekend.
The ongoing joint U.S.–Israel military operation against Iran is expected to persist for days, potentially even weeks. While the longer-term market impact remains uncertain, it is reasonable to expect that the prevailing bullish sentiment — already exhibiting signs of exhaustion in certain segments — may become another casualty of escalating tensions in the Middle East.
Through February 27, foreign equities and commodities had emerged as the top performers in 2026, based on ETF benchmarks. Yet assumptions that seemed firmly grounded just a week ago now appear outdated in light of rapidly evolving geopolitical developments.
The central issue now is the degree of vulnerability facing the global economy. In short, the longer the conflict persists, the greater the risk of economic blowback. At present, the likelihood of a swift resolution appears limited, particularly as the war expands across the Middle East, including Iran’s strike on Saudi oil infrastructure.
According to Torbjorn Soltvedt, an analyst at Verisk Maplecroft, the attack on Ras Tanura Refinery represents a meaningful escalation, placing Gulf energy infrastructure directly in Iran’s crosshairs. He noted that a prolonged period of instability is likely, as Iran attempts to inflict economic pressure by targeting tankers, regional energy facilities, trade corridors, and U.S. security partners.
Should the conflict drag on and oil prices remain elevated, the global economic impact could be substantial. In 2025, approximately 31% of all seaborne crude shipments passed through the Strait of Hormuz, according to analytics firm Kpler. Given Iran’s strategic positioning, it retains the capacity to disrupt — if not completely halt — shipping flows through this critical chokepoint.
Norbert Rücker, head of economics at Julius Baer, emphasized that the broader economic consequences hinge largely on the uninterrupted flow of oil and gas through Hormuz. The gravest risk, he suggested, is not necessarily a full closure, but significant damage to key regional energy infrastructure.
Kpler further cautioned that any meaningful shutdown — or even a prolonged de facto closure driven by insurers withdrawing coverage — would likely trigger simultaneous supply shocks across multiple commodity markets.
How long the conflict will endure remains highly uncertain. On Sunday, Donald Trump indicated that the military campaign could last “four weeks or less,” though such timelines in geopolitical conflicts are often fluid.
Energy markets are already reacting. Crude prices are climbing, with the international Brent Crude benchmark trading near $78 per barrel this morning — its highest level in more than a year.
The Trump administration’s stated objective of pursuing regime change in Iran points to the possibility of a protracted conflict. On Sunday, Donald Trump urged “Iranian patriots who yearn for freedom” to seize the moment and reclaim their country — rhetoric that signals ambitions extending beyond limited military strikes.
However, achieving regime change would be extraordinarily difficult. Although Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, was reportedly killed in Saturday’s airstrikes, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps remains a formidable power center. The Revolutionary Guard — Iran’s dominant military institution with vast economic holdings that help finance its operations — has likely prepared for sustained confrontation following years of tensions and prior strikes by the U.S. and Israel. Airpower alone is unlikely to dismantle what amounts to the regime’s praetorian guard.
According to Jonathan Panikoff, now affiliated with the Atlantic Council, the decisive factor will ultimately be internal dynamics. Once U.S. and Israeli strikes subside, any movement to end the regime would depend on whether rank-and-file security forces stand aside or align with popular unrest. Otherwise, those elements of the regime that retain control of weapons are likely to use force to preserve power.
Regime change in Iran is currently viewed as only moderately probable. Betting markets on Polymarket assign roughly a 42% likelihood to that outcome. The takeaway: expectations for a swift resolution appear limited, with the conflict likely to persist until one side concedes strategic ground.
However, the longer-term outlook may look different. Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa Program at Chatham House, argues that over time the survival of the Islamic Republic in its current form is doubtful. In his assessment, the regime as it exists today may ultimately prove unsustainable.
If that scenario unfolds, the central question shifts to succession: what replaces the current leadership — and whether any transition ushers in greater stability or instead fuels further instability within Iran and across the broader Middle East.
The world’s most critical oil chokepoint has effectively gone offline — and energy markets are adjusting instantly.
Brent crude surged 13% to $82.37 per barrel on Monday morning, marking its largest one-day jump in four years. The rally followed coordinated U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iran over the weekend — an operation the Pentagon has labeled Operation Epic Fury. The strikes killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, ending his 36-year rule and plunging the Islamic Republic into its most severe political upheaval since 1979. Tehran responded swiftly, launching attacks on U.S. bases across the region and, more critically for global markets, targeting oil tankers moving through the Strait of Hormuz.
That narrow passageway handles roughly 20% of global oil flows each day. By Monday morning, it was effectively shut. Maersk suspended all vessel transits. Over 200 oil and LNG carriers dropped anchor. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps reportedly warned ships that no vessels would be permitted to pass. This is no longer rhetoric — it is a tangible supply shock.
Why the Oil Outlook Has Fundamentally Shifted
Oil markets are accustomed to geopolitical tension. They have repeatedly absorbed headlines without lasting disruption. What they cannot easily digest is the sudden loss of one-fifth of global supply with no clear timeline for restoration.
Just days ago, Brent was trading near $73, and the prevailing narrative centered on excess supply. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projected WTI crude would average $53 by year-end. OPEC+ was discussing potential production increases. Market bears appeared firmly in control.
That backdrop has flipped. Brent settled near $79 after briefly touching $82, while WTI climbed from $67 on Friday to $72. Diesel futures — a key barometer of industrial activity — spiked more than 20% intraday. U.S. gasoline futures advanced 9% to their highest level since July 2024. According to GasBuddy analyst Patrick De Haan, retail gasoline prices could rise by 10 to 30 cents per gallon in the near term, with some stations potentially increasing prices by as much as 85 cents.
The market is no longer pricing geopolitical risk. It is pricing physical disruption.
“The magnitude of the retaliation caught the market completely off guard,” said Jorge Leon, head of geopolitical analysis at Rystad Energy. “This is far removed from what investors had been pricing in.”
OPEC+ attempted to ease concerns on Sunday by announcing a relatively small output increase of 206,000 barrels per day for April. However, as Helima Croft of RBC Capital Markets noted, incremental barrels offer limited relief if transport routes remain compromised. “Accessing spare capacity becomes highly constrained when key waterways are effectively shut down,” she wrote.
From a broader market perspective, Dominic Wilson of Goldman Sachs emphasized that equities will be driven less by dramatic headlines and more by the duration of the energy shock. In a client note, he argued that only a prolonged and severe spike in oil prices would materially alter the global growth trajectory.
Meanwhile, analysts at JPMorgan outlined four key variables shaping the outlook: the scale of supply disruption, the length of the outage, the speed at which alternative production can be activated, and the credibility of a diplomatic resolution. On Sunday, Donald Trump suggested U.S. military operations could extend for “four to five weeks” — a timeframe that implies a potentially sustained period of elevated risk for energy markets.
How to Position for the Oil Shock
Energy equities are the clearest near-term beneficiaries, and capital is already rotating aggressively into the space. The Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLE) notched a fresh 52-week high on Monday. Below are five vehicles to consider:
Exxon Mobil (XOM)
Trading near $155, just shy of its all-time high of $156.93, Exxon represents the most diversified large-cap exposure to elevated crude prices. The company produced 4.7 million barrels of oil equivalent per day last quarter, exceeded Q4 expectations with EPS of $1.71, and has earmarked $20 billion in buybacks for 2026.
Wells Fargo recently lifted its price target to $183 from $156. CEO Darren Woods reiterated on the latest earnings call that there is “no near-term peak Permian” for the company. With Permian breakevens around $35 per barrel and production in Guyana scaling, incremental oil price gains translate efficiently into free cash flow expansion.
Chevron (CVX)
Shares briefly reached a new 52-week high of $196.76 before closing near $193. Chevron’s estimated Brent breakeven — inclusive of dividends and capex — sits near $50 per barrel. At current levels around $79 Brent, the company is generating substantial surplus cash.
Bank of America raised its target to $206 from $188. Chevron is also reportedly in exclusive discussions to assume control of Iraq’s West Qurna 2 field from Lukoil, a move that would add meaningful production upside. CEO Mike Wirth recently characterized the company as “bigger, stronger, and more resilient than ever.”
ConocoPhillips (COP)
Up nearly 4% to roughly $118 and marking a new 52-week high, ConocoPhillips offers more direct leverage to crude prices given its pure upstream model.
Goldman Sachs added COP to its U.S. Conviction Buy List, arguing the stock is approaching a material re-rating. The Marathon Oil integration is enhancing scale, while a $2 billion asset divestiture is sharpening its Permian focus. At current oil prices, COP is generating approximately $7 in EPS, implying a sub-17x multiple — reasonable for a commodity cycle inflection.
Occidental Petroleum (OXY)
Trading near $54, Occidental offers higher beta exposure. Its more levered balance sheet amplifies upside in a sustained higher-price environment.
Berkshire Hathaway holds roughly 28% of the company, providing a credibility anchor via Warren Buffett’s long-term endorsement. While the Carbon Engineering acquisition adds energy-transition optionality, the immediate thesis is straightforward: if Brent sustains levels above $80, OXY’s earnings power expands rapidly, making a $70+ valuation plausible under that scenario.
Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLE)
For investors seeking diversified sector exposure without single-name volatility, XLE remains the default allocation. Trading near $93 and at a 52-week high, the ETF is heavily weighted toward Exxon (~22%), Chevron (~17%), and ConocoPhillips (~8%), which together account for nearly half the portfolio.
XLE provides integrated exposure across oil, gas, and energy services in a single vehicle. Should the conflict extend for several weeks — as suggested by Donald Trump — the entire sector could undergo a structural repricing higher.
The Bear Case You Can’t Ignore
History shows that geopolitical shocks often produce violent spikes followed by equally sharp reversals. During the June 2025 “12-day war” between Israel and Iran, crude initially surged but retraced quickly once it became clear that physical supply flows were unaffected.
While this episode involves direct tanker strikes and the functional closure of the Strait of Hormuz, some analysts still see a limited-duration event. Max Layton of Citigroup argues the base case is a leadership shift in Tehran that brings the conflict to an end within one to two weeks.
A similar view comes from Landon Derentz at the Atlantic Council. He notes that regional energy infrastructure remains intact and that global supply capacity has not been structurally damaged. The oversupply dynamics that capped prices before the conflict have not disappeared. If Hormuz reopens quickly, crude could surrender much of its recent gains.
The Inflation Risk
There is also a macro layer that complicates the bullish narrative. Sustained higher oil prices feed directly into transportation, manufacturing, and consumer input costs. That dynamic could constrain the Federal Reserve, forcing policymakers to delay or abandon anticipated rate cuts.
Monday’s Institute for Supply Management manufacturing data showed input costs rising at their fastest pace since 2022. Treasury yields have begun to move higher in response. If oil remains elevated long enough to reignite inflation pressures, the Fed’s stance could shift from easing to holding — a headwind for equities broadly, even if energy stocks outperform on relative terms.
A Structural Repricing of Risk
That said, even a swift diplomatic resolution would not fully reset the clock. Markets were effectively assigning near-zero geopolitical risk premium to oil prior to this weekend. That complacency has been challenged.
Energy equities were already trading at modest multiples relative to free cash flow. Now they have a tangible catalyst. Even if the conflict de-escalates quickly, the perception of risk — and the embedded premium in crude pricing — is unlikely to vanish overnight.
What to Watch
Three catalysts in the next 72 hours. First, Iran’s response — Tehran’s next move over the next 24 to 48 hours will determine whether this is a two-week shock or a multi-month crisis. Any strikes on Saudi or UAE energy infrastructure pushes Brent toward $90 or beyond.
Second, the Strait of Hormuz reopening timeline. If shipping insurance companies begin covering Hormuz transits again this week, oil pulls back. If the effective closure extends past Friday, the supply disruption becomes real and sustained — and $80+ becomes the new floor.
Third, the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The IEA said Monday it’s in contact with major producers about potential coordinated reserve releases. Any SPR drawdown announcement would cap oil’s upside temporarily but wouldn’t change the structural supply picture.
The energy sector just went from afterthought to the most important trade in the market. Whether this conflict lasts two weeks or two months, the companies producing oil at $35 to $50 breakevens and generating massive free cash flow at $70 to $80 Brent are going to reward shareholders. The question isn’t whether to own energy — it’s how much.
Over the weekend, the United States and Israel launched coordinated missile and drone strikes on Iran, targeting key military facilities in an attempt to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. The operation reportedly killed Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, marking a dramatic escalation and sharply increasing regional tensions. Iran responded swiftly with a wide-ranging missile campaign aimed not only at Israel but also at several Gulf states, including Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain. The fallout rippled across the region, prompting multiple Gulf nations to close their airspace and suspend equity trading.
Energy markets were also disrupted. Shipping activity through the Strait of Hormuz—a strategic chokepoint responsible for roughly 20% of global oil flows—slowed dramatically as tanker operators rerouted vessels for security reasons. Meanwhile, Qatar temporarily halted liquefied natural gas production at the world’s largest export terminal following a drone strike. U.S. President Donald Trump indicated that American military operations would persist, suggesting tensions could remain elevated in the near term.
From a market standpoint, energy represents the primary transmission channel of this crisis into global financial assets. Prolonged or severe disruptions to oil and gas supply could push up inflation expectations, dampen business sentiment, and heighten cross-asset volatility. Simply put, the longer and more intense the geopolitical shock, the greater the potential market fallout.
This dynamic was visible when markets reopened Monday. Brent crude briefly climbed to $82 per barrel amid concerns over tighter supply. Sustained price strength would likely reinforce inflation pressures, with knock-on effects for equities and interest rates. However, for oil to remain structurally elevated, investors would likely need confirmation of a more extended—or even complete—closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Such a development would mark a significant escalation beyond current disruptions and warrant a larger risk premium in energy markets. Political factors within Iran, particularly how the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) chooses to respond, will be critical. Whether the IRGC de-escalates or intensifies its actions will determine how much of the current market reaction reflects temporary risk pricing versus a genuine physical supply shock.
Oil Rallies After Tanker Flows Stall in the Strait of Hormuz
With developments unfolding quickly, tracking energy prices remains one of the clearest ways to gauge both the intensity and staying power of the geopolitical risk. Oil and natural gas markets typically react swiftly to new headlines, making them a real-time indicator of whether tensions are easing, stabilizing, or escalating further. As a result, close monitoring of these markets will be crucial in assessing how the conflict may shape global financial conditions in the coming days and weeks.
Bitcoin rebounded on Monday, recovering from losses triggered by U.S. strikes on Iran over the weekend. The cryptocurrency’s advance mirrored a broader recovery in equity markets.
The world’s largest digital asset was up 5.7% at $69,428.4 as of 16:40 ET (21:40 GMT).
Bitcoin rebounds after weekend selloff
Bitcoin had dropped sharply after coordinated U.S. and Israeli military operations in Iran reportedly resulted in the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, marking one of the most severe regional escalations in recent years.
Iran responded with several waves of missile attacks targeting Israeli and U.S. military facilities.
Following the initial strikes, Bitcoin tumbled to around $63,000 before stabilizing and beginning to recover.
According to Dessislava Ianeva, analyst at Nexo Dispatch, Bitcoin held relatively steady as markets evaluated the evolving U.S.–Iran situation. While prediction markets remain split on the likelihood of further escalation, the limited price reaction indicates investors currently see the conflict as a contained, short-term risk rather than the beginning of a sustained downturn.
President Donald Trump stated Monday that the military operation had four key goals: dismantling Iran’s missile capabilities, destroying its navy, preventing the country from acquiring nuclear weapons, and stopping Tehran from supporting and directing terrorist activities.
“We’re already well ahead of schedule, but whatever time is required, that’s fine. We’ll do whatever it takes,” Trump said, adding that although initial projections suggested four to five weeks, the U.S. has the capacity to extend operations significantly if necessary.
Strategy adds $204 million in Bitcoin
Michael Saylor’s company Strategy expanded its Bitcoin holdings last week, purchasing 3,015 BTC valued at approximately $204.1 million, at an average price of about $67,700 per coin.
Following the acquisition, Strategy’s total Bitcoin holdings increased to 720,737 BTC, accumulated at a total cost of roughly $54.77 billion — averaging about $75,985 per Bitcoin.
Strategy remains the largest publicly traded corporate holder of Bitcoin, having steadily built one of the most substantial corporate crypto treasuries.
Altcoins track Bitcoin higher
Most major altcoins also moved higher alongside Bitcoin.
Ethereum, the second-largest cryptocurrency, climbed 6% to $2,045.01. XRP gained 2.9% to $1.3936, while Solana and Cardano rose 5.7% and 2.2%, respectively.
The United States has built up its most significant military footprint in the Middle East since 2003, deploying two aircraft carriers and F-22 stealth fighters. Indirect negotiations in Geneva between US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Iranian officials concluded Thursday without progress. The Trump administration has cautioned that Iran will face “drastic consequences” if it fails to agree to meaningful nuclear concessions.
Israel has activated bomb shelters and warned Lebanon that its infrastructure could be targeted if Hezbollah becomes involved in any US–Iran confrontation. The US State Department authorized the departure of non-essential personnel and family members from the US Embassy in Israel on February 27, following similar instructions for the embassy in Beirut issued on February 23. Meanwhile, reports suggest the US 5th Fleet in Bahrain has been scaled back to fewer than 100 essential personnel.
China has urged its citizens to leave Iran immediately. South Korea escalated its advisory to a “Level 3” red alert, instructing nationals to depart. Australia has offered voluntary departure to diplomatic dependents in the UAE, Qatar, and Jordan, citing a worsening security environment. Several European countries, including Finland, Sweden, and Serbia, have also recommended that their citizens evacuate Iran.
Commercial carriers such as KLM have begun suspending regional flights. Governments are encouraging citizens to exit while commercial routes remain available, warning that air corridors could close quickly if hostilities erupt.
Does this mean a US–Israel strike on Iran is imminent? Possibly—but diplomatic channels remain active. The State Department confirmed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio will travel to Israel early next week. Meanwhile, reports indicate that Omani Foreign Minister Badr Al Busaidi is set to meet Vice President JD Vance and other US officials in Washington in previously undisclosed talks aimed at preventing escalation.
Oil markets are ending February on firm footing, with prices rising about $1 per barrel during the final trading week as tensions intensify. This week’s indirect talks in Geneva produced no tangible outcome, and Trump’s 10–15 day deadline is fast approaching. At the same time, attention to the upcoming OPEC+ summit has been muted—potentially opening the door for Saudi Arabia to surprise markets with another production increase for April.
The recovery in oil prices, combined with a reshuffling of global equity allocations, has recently delivered a notable lift to US energy ETFs (see chart). However, today’s modest $1.50 rise in crude suggests markets may have already priced in the risk of a swift conflict—or remain unconvinced that one is imminent.
Saudi Arabia could still opt to raise output, but much of that additional supply would need to transit the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint that Iran has repeatedly threatened to shut down.
Between 2023 and 2025, the 10-year US Treasury yield moved largely in tandem with the price of Brent crude (see chart), reflecting a strong correlation between energy prices and long-term interest rates.
In recent weeks, however, that relationship has diverged. While oil prices have climbed, the 10-year yield has declined. This shift suggests that investors may be rotating into bonds as a safe haven, anticipating that a renewed conflict in the Middle East could trigger broader geopolitical instability and economic uncertainty.
It was notable that the 10-year yield slipped below 4.00% today, even after a stronger-than-expected PPI inflation print.
More broadly, both nominal and real 10-year yields have traded within a relatively narrow range since 2023 (see chart). In our view, that sideways pattern is likely to persist through the remainder of the year.
The global energy industry is preparing for its most serious upheaval since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. As tensions in Iran intensify, the Strait of Hormuz — the world’s most vital transit route for liquefied natural gas (LNG) — has effectively come to a standstill.
Vessel-tracking data shows that at least 11 large LNG carriers have suspended their journeys. Major Japanese shipping firms, including Nippon Yusen K.K. (TYO:9101) and Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd (OTC:MSLOY), have reportedly instructed their ships to remain in safer waters. Iranian state media has characterized the passage as “virtually closed,” leaving roughly 20% of global LNG supply stranded behind what amounts to a naval blockade. Unlike oil, which can sometimes be diverted through pipelines, the immense volumes of Qatari gas moving through this narrow corridor have no viable alternative route.
Asia’s exposure and price shock
Asian nations are at the forefront of the fallout. Buyers in China, India, and Japan — the largest importers of Qatari gas — are said to be urgently seeking substitute cargoes from other suppliers. Yet in an already tight market, traders expect a sharp surge in spot LNG prices, potentially undoing a year of relative price stability within days.
The strain extends beyond spot purchases. Many long-term LNG agreements are linked to crude benchmarks, so any spike in Brent Crude would quickly drive up costs even for contracted volumes, raising energy bills for households and industrial users alike.
Supply risks and broader regional strain
The disruption is also creating operational risks for producers. LNG export terminals depend on a continuous rotation of tankers to maintain cooling systems; without outbound shipments, producers in Qatar and the UAE could face partial or full production shutdowns.
The ripple effects are spreading beyond the Gulf. With Israeli gas fields closed and Iranian pipeline exports to Turkey under pressure, countries such as Egypt are being pushed into the higher-cost seaborne LNG market.
The result is a global scramble for the limited cargoes still available, setting the stage for an international bidding war. Whether the conflict widens or remains contained, the financial burden is likely to be passed on to consumers around the world.
The United States and Israel carried out coordinated strikes on Iran on Saturday, killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and triggering a fresh wave of conflict across the Middle East.
The attacks unsettled neighboring Gulf Arab oil producers as concerns mounted over further escalation, particularly after Iran retaliated with missile launches toward Israel.
According to four trading sources, several major oil companies and leading commodity traders temporarily halted crude and fuel shipments through the Strait of Hormuz following the strikes.
Key Reactions from Analysts
Helima Croft, Head of Commodities Research, RBC Capital:
Croft said the long-term impact on oil prices will depend on whether the IRGC retreats under sustained airstrikes or escalates further, potentially increasing the costs of what she described as Washington’s second regime-change effort in just over two months.
She added that regional leaders had cautioned Washington about the spillover risks of renewed confrontation with Iran, warning that oil prices above $100 per barrel would pose a serious threat.
Croft also emphasized that OPEC’s ability to cushion supply shocks is limited. Aside from Saudi Arabia, most OPEC+ members are already producing near capacity, meaning any announced output increase may have little practical effect.
Jorge Leon, SVP and Head of Geopolitical Analysis, Rystad Energy:
Leon noted that while alternative infrastructure exists to bypass the Strait of Hormuz, a prolonged disruption could effectively remove 8–10 million barrels per day from the market—significant in a world consuming roughly 100 million barrels daily.
He suggested countries with strategic petroleum reserves may release supplies if the disruption drags on. Absent quick de-escalation, he expects oil prices to reprice sharply higher at the start of the week.
Eurasia Group energy analysts:
They anticipate oil prices will surge when markets reopen. If fighting continues into Sunday, prices could jump $5–$10 above the current $73 level, especially given Iran’s claim that it has closed the Strait of Hormuz and reports of tanker disruptions.
Barclays energy analysts:
Barclays warned that markets may confront worst-case supply fears on Monday. Brent crude could climb to $100 per barrel as traders assess the risk of major supply interruptions amid intensifying regional instability.
Vishnu Varathan, Head of Macro Research (Asia ex-Japan), Mizuho, Singapore:
Varathan said recurring regional attacks may become the new norm, keeping oil prices elevated as both production and transit routes remain vulnerable. OPEC could face pressure to boost output, though a 10–25% risk premium on oil prices would not be excessive—even without a full blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which he described as a potential 50% premium event.
Christopher Wong, Strategist, OCBC, Singapore:
Wong expects geopolitical risk premiums to rise as markets open. Safe-haven assets like gold are likely to gap higher, while oil could strengthen on supply concerns. Meanwhile, risk assets and high-beta currencies may experience early volatility, particularly if retaliation or regional spillover intensifies.
Nick Ferres, CIO, Vantage Point Asset Management, Singapore:
Ferres argued that energy remains undervalued and should rally at the start of the week—alongside gold.
Thunderous explosions and massive fireballs from missiles launched by Iran across the Gulf underscored a long-feared reality for regional leaders: Tehran can carry the fight directly to their territory. The attacks are likely to solidify Arab governments’ backing for joint action by the United States and Israel.
Even on the Palm Jumeirah — Dubai’s most exclusive enclave — blasts shook buildings and struck a luxury hotel, sending residents scrambling as missiles and interceptors streaked overhead. The scenes made clear that the conflict had spilled beyond Iran’s borders, just as Tehran had cautioned.
“What has now been demonstrated is that we — not the United States — are directly exposed,” said Ebtesam Al-Ketbi of the Emirates Policy Center. “When Iran attacked, it hit the Gulf first, claiming it was targeting U.S. bases.”
Analysts say Tehran’s strikes are designed to show that no American ally in the region is out of reach and to increase the price of supporting Washington’s campaign. But they warn that any error in judgment could turn calibrated signaling into full-scale war.
Gulf officials argue that by hitting oil-producing neighbors, Iran is widening the battlefield and putting global energy supplies at risk, not merely regional stability. For rapidly expanding economies such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates — all reliant on open skies, safe sea lanes and steady trade — a broader confrontation would be severely destabilizing.
By casting the confrontation as a campaign for regime change in Iran, President Donald Trump has raised the stakes, increasing the likelihood that Tehran could retaliate more aggressively, observers say.
If Iran were to misjudge and directly attack Gulf Cooperation Council states, the nature of the conflict would shift dramatically. Regional governments would be under intense pressure to respond as lives and strategic assets come under threat.
Some Gulf analysts contend that Iran is undermining its own strategic interests by striking neighboring states. While Tehran insists it is targeting U.S. military installations, Gulf capitals view the attacks as clear violations of sovereignty.
In recent indirect talks with Washington aimed at defusing tensions, Iran signaled willingness to negotiate over its nuclear program but refused to discuss its ballistic missile arsenal or its backing of regional militias. Tehran has suggested that such issues be handled in a regional dialogue excluding the United States — a proposal Gulf states argue would weaken rather than strengthen the existing security framework, given their longstanding reliance on U.S. protection.
From their perspective, Iran’s missile capabilities and network of proxies pose immediate threats. Without external security guarantors, they see little credibility in a regional-only arrangement.
Meanwhile, Trump’s rhetoric has shifted notably. Whereas he previously described potential U.S. strikes as leverage to secure a nuclear agreement, he has more recently framed them in terms that imply regime change. Unlike the large-scale 2003 invasion of Iraq under George W. Bush, which involved a prolonged troop deployment and occupation, the current strategy appears focused on limited air operations designed to achieve swift, visible outcomes while minimizing American casualties and domestic political fallout.
The bet is that a short, decisive campaign would yield political benefits, whereas a drawn-out war — especially one disrupting oil flows or the broader economy — could carry heavy costs.
Should the conflict expand to include U.S. bases, diplomatic missions, energy infrastructure, or the crucial maritime corridor of the Strait of Hormuz, the economic and political repercussions for the United States, the Gulf, and global markets would escalate sharply.
In a post on Truth Social, Donald Trump warned Iran not to carry out any additional retaliatory strikes against the United States or its Middle East allies. He said Tehran had threatened large-scale attacks on neighboring countries seen as aligned with Washington.
The remarks suggest that Iran’s military capabilities remain operational despite the reported killing of its Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. The wave of retaliatory strikes indicates that Tehran has not been deterred by his death.
Iran reportedly targeted the United Arab Emirates, striking Dubai International Airport and the Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest building. It also launched attacks on Bahrain’s capital, as well as Qatar and Kuwait. In response, several Gulf states have warned they may retaliate against Iran.
Qatar has shut down its main airport in Doha, while Dubai International Airport has also been closed following the strikes.
It remains uncertain whether Trump’s threat to respond with significantly greater force will deter further escalation. It is also unclear what he meant by saying, “We will hit them with a force that has never been seen before.”
Impact of the Conflict on Global Trade and the Energy Sector
Earlier today, we noted that the sudden closure of Dubai International Airport caused widespread flight cancellations due to its vital role as a global transit hub. Leading Gulf airlines — Emirates, Qatar Airways, and Etihad Airways — have suspended services indefinitely.
In addition, three major Japanese shipping companies have halted operations in the Gulf following a U.S. naval warning. These include Nippon Yusen (TYO:9101), Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (OTC:MSLOY), and Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha (TYO:9107).
Analysts at RBC Capital Markets say that U.S. strikes on Iran and Tehran’s counterattacks have created a cascading effect across the Gulf. The Strait of Hormuz is now viewed as “effectively closed,” disrupting roughly 20% of global LNG exports and about 90% of Japan’s crude oil imports.
They warn that crude oil prices could spike sharply as tensions intensify and diplomatic efforts remain stalled. Investors are advised to closely track developments in the region and assess their potential implications for oil and LNG markets.
UK markets return to the spotlight on Friday following Labour’s surprise defeat in the Gorton and Denton by-election. Labour’s candidate finished third, while the Greens secured a commanding win over both Labour and Reform. Investors in gilts and sterling must now assess the longer-term implications of the result — including whether it signals growing traction for the radical left within UK politics — and what it could mean for Keir Starmer’s leadership.
Sterling initially strengthened earlier this morning but has since slipped to fresh lows, testing $1.3450. It is currently the weakest performer in the G10 on Friday and the second weakest over the week. Despite heightened political uncertainty, the decline in the pound has been relatively contained so far. Notably, gilts outperformed on Thursday, with yields falling sharply.
Why Starmer may remain secure — for now
Earlier this month, speculation that Starmer could face an internal challenge sparked some volatility in the gilt market. However, that uncertainty faded quickly after senior cabinet members publicly backed him. Although calls for his resignation may intensify within parts of the party, we do not expect Labour heavyweights or cabinet members to support such moves.
It seems unlikely that Starmer would be ousted on the back of this result alone. Few potential rivals would want to assume leadership ahead of next week’s Spring Statement. Moreover, possible successors such as Wes Streeting and Angela Rayner face their own challenges — Streeting could encounter a Green surge in his constituency, while Rayner continues to contend with questions surrounding the stamp duty issue. Cabinet members have already cautioned against overinterpreting the by-election outcome, suggesting Starmer’s position is stable for the time being.
Why a leftward shift may not help Labour
Some within Labour may argue for a sharper move to the left in response to this defeat. However, Gorton and Denton represents just one constituency and is not necessarily indicative of national sentiment. It is far from clear that adopting more left-leaning policies would strengthen Labour’s prospects in the May elections. According to recent YouGov data, the economy remains voters’ primary concern, and more progressive policies may do little to address rising unemployment, particularly among younger people.
Why gilt volatility may remain contained
Although the by-election presents a political test for the gilt market, it is unlikely to trigger significant volatility at week’s end. The broader impact of the May election results is likely to matter more. Additionally, there is speculation that next week’s Spring Statement could see the Office for Budget Responsibility reduce its forecast for gilt issuance this year, following strong tax receipts earlier in the year. That could help ease upward pressure on yields and offset any market reaction to Labour’s loss.
Technical focus: GBP/USD
Sterling is broadly weaker today, though the by-election result has not sparked a full-scale sell-off. GBP/USD is hovering around its 200-day simple moving average at $1.3447. A decisive break below this level would represent a significant technical deterioration and suggest downside momentum is building.
Netflix rallies after abandoning Warner Bros Discovery bid
European equity futures point to a firmer open on Friday, capping another week in which European indices are set to outperform US markets. Netflix is in focus after confirming it has withdrawn its bid for Warner Bros Discovery. The stock jumped 8% in post-market trading on Thursday and could recover much, if not all, of its roughly 10% year-to-date decline.
Investors will also monitor European inflation data, with attention on France to see whether CPI rebounds following a sharp drop earlier in the year.
Oil prices fell more than 1% in Asian trading on Monday, taking a breather after last week’s sharp rally, as investors assessed the likelihood of a third round of U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations and renewed uncertainty around U.S. trade policy.
By 20:50 ET (01:50 GMT), Brent crude for April delivery dropped 1% to $71.03 a barrel, while WTI crude declined 0.9% to $65.75 a barrel.
Both benchmarks had climbed nearly 6% last week amid signs of a potential U.S.-Iran confrontation and an unexpected drawdown in U.S. crude inventories, which supported prices.
Traders watch third round of U.S.- Iran nuclear talks
Iran and the United States are expected to hold a third round of nuclear discussions on Thursday in Geneva, raising hopes that tensions may ease.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday that there is a strong possibility of reaching a diplomatic resolution, adding that an agreement is within reach. Markets viewed the remarks as a signal of potential compromise.
Iran is a major producer within OPEC and possesses some of the largest proven oil reserves globally. The country also borders the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint that handles about one-fifth of the world’s seaborne oil. Any escalation involving Iran could disrupt shipments and drive up freight and insurance costs.
Trump raises global tariffs to 15%
Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled new global tariffs, initially imposing a 10% duty on imports for 150 days after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated his previous, broader tariff plan.
The administration increased the rate to 15% on Saturday—the maximum permitted under the applicable law—adding fresh uncertainty to global trade and demand prospects.
Higher tariffs can strain supply chains and prompt retaliatory actions from trade partners. Slower trade activity and weaker industrial production typically weigh on fuel consumption.
For more than a year, Donald Trump has operated in Washington with sweeping confidence, exercising power in ways critics said resembled monarchical authority. On Friday, however, the Supreme Court of the United States sharply redirected that momentum.
By invalidating his administration’s cornerstone economic policy, the court handed down a rare and highly visible rebuke, signaling that even a dominant president faces constitutional limits. The 6–3 ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, rejected Trump’s expansive claim that he could impose broad tariffs under emergency powers to safeguard U.S. economic security.
Trump reacted swiftly and angrily. According to Delaware Governor Matt Meyer, the president told governors at the White House that he was “seething” and needed to respond to the courts. Later, speaking to reporters, he criticized the justices who ruled against him — including two he had appointed — calling them weak and an embarrassment. Still, he maintained that the decision ultimately clarified his authority and insisted he could pursue even higher tariffs through alternative legal avenues.
Few issues have defined Trump’s second term more than tariffs, which he has frequently described as his “favorite word.” He used them not only as trade tools but as leverage in disputes over agriculture, foreign investment, narcotics trafficking, prescription drug pricing, and industrial policy. While Congress holds constitutional authority over taxation, the Republican-controlled legislature largely refrained from challenging his approach, and the conservative-leaning court had often bolstered executive power in prior rulings.
This decision, however, marked a boundary. Historians and legal scholars described it as a direct blow to Trump’s broad interpretation of emergency authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Although the president suggested he could rely on other statutes — and even impose a temporary global tariff — such paths would likely involve stricter procedural requirements and time constraints.
Legal experts noted that no previous president had used the disputed law as aggressively. As University of Virginia scholar Saikrishna Prakash put it, the ruling leaves the presidency “definitely weaker,” underscoring that even assertive executive power remains subject to judicial review.
Oil prices moved modestly higher in Asian trading on Friday, building on strong gains from the prior two sessions and putting major benchmarks on course for roughly a 6% weekly advance, as rising tensions between the U.S. and Iran heightened concerns about potential supply disruptions in the Middle East.
By 22:41 ET (03:41 GMT), Brent for April delivery climbed 0.2% to $71.81 a barrel, while West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude rose 0.5% to $66.78 a barrel.
Both contracts were hovering near their highest levels since early August and were set to record weekly gains of more than 6%.
Oil near six-month high on US-Iran tensions
Investor anxiety has intensified after U.S. President Donald Trump warned Tehran that “bad things” could follow if a nuclear agreement is not reached within roughly 10–15 days, raising the possibility of military action.
According to a Wall Street Journal report, Trump is considering a limited strike on Iranian targets to pressure Tehran into accepting a nuclear deal.
Any escalation involving Iran — a key OPEC producer — could jeopardize shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital passageway that handles about one-fifth of global oil trade, thereby increasing the market’s sensitivity to geopolitical risk.
This week’s rally also marked a rebound from earlier losses, when prices slipped at the start of the week on hopes that U.S.-Iran negotiations were making progress. The renewed tough rhetoric has since restored a geopolitical risk premium, pushing crude back toward multi-week highs.
US crude inventories drop sharply – EIA
Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration on Thursday showed crude stockpiles fell by around 9 million barrels last week, defying expectations for a 1.7 million-barrel increase.
The report also indicated declines in gasoline and distillate inventories, both coming in below forecasts, suggesting solid demand from refiners and consumers.
Markets are now awaiting the release of the U.S. Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) Price Index later on Friday — the Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of inflation.
Following recent hawkish Fed minutes that signaled policymakers are in no rush to cut interest rates, the PCE data could offer additional insight into the central bank’s policy trajectory.
WTI prices could stage a rebound as supply concerns intensify amid escalating US-Iran tensions and stalled Ukraine-Russia negotiations.
Talks between Washington and Tehran have yielded little concrete progress, with Iranian officials only اشاره to a broad framework for a potential nuclear agreement, leaving uncertainty over future crude exports.
Meanwhile, peace discussions between Ukraine and Russia held in Geneva concluded without a breakthrough, sustaining geopolitical risks that may continue to underpin oil prices.
West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude slips slightly on Thursday after plunging 4.9% in the previous session, hovering around $65.00 per barrel during Asian trading. Despite the recent drop, oil prices may find support from potential supply disruptions linked to rising US-Iran tensions and stalled Ukraine-Russia peace efforts.
Negotiations between Washington and Tehran remain unresolved. Iranian officials have pointed to a “general agreement” on the framework of a possible nuclear deal, but key differences persist. US Vice President JD Vance stated that Iran failed to meet Washington’s red lines, while US President Donald Trump reiterated that military action remains an option. Reports suggest that any potential US strike could develop into a prolonged campaign, with Israel advocating for an outcome aimed at regime change in Iran.
Meanwhile, peace talks in Geneva between Ukraine and Russia concluded without tangible progress, according to Reuters. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy accused Moscow of stalling US-backed diplomatic efforts to end the four-year conflict. Trump has urged Kyiv to consider a deal that could involve significant concessions, even as Russian forces continue attacking energy infrastructure and making battlefield advances.
On the trade front, India’s state-run Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) reportedly made its first-ever purchase of Venezuelan crude, while HPCL Mittal Energy Limited resumed buying cargoes from Venezuela for the first time in two years.
In US inventory data, the American Petroleum Institute (API) reported a 0.609 million-barrel decline in weekly crude stocks, partially offsetting the previous week’s massive 13.4 million-barrel build — the largest increase since January 2023.
Oil prices moved sideways in Asian trading on Monday, as attention centered on renewed diplomatic engagement between the U.S. and Iran, with investors wary of possible supply disruptions in the Middle East.
Trading activity remained subdued due to public holidays in China and the U.S., while weak Japanese growth figures added to worries about slowing demand. Brent crude for April delivery slipped 0.2% to $67.65 per barrel by 21:15 ET (02:15 GMT).
U.S.– Iran nuclear talks to resume
The U.S. and Iran are set to hold a second round of discussions in Switzerland this week regarding Tehran’s nuclear program, following the restart of negotiations earlier in February. However, diplomatic efforts coincided with Washington deploying a second aircraft carrier to the Middle East and signaling readiness for extended military action should talks collapse.
President Donald Trump reiterated warnings that Iran must agree to a deal or risk further military measures. Over the weekend, Iranian officials indicated a willingness to make concessions on their nuclear activities in exchange for relief from tough U.S. sanctions, adding that the next move rests with Washington.
Tensions between the two countries have recently supported oil prices, as traders factored in a higher geopolitical risk premium amid fears of renewed conflict that could disrupt Iranian oil output.
OPEC+ considering renewed output increases
At the same time, some of oil’s geopolitical premium was tempered by a Reuters report suggesting that OPEC+ intends to restart production hikes from April. Higher output would enable member countries to capitalize on recent price gains, though increased supply could weigh on prices over the longer term.
The group is scheduled to meet on March 1.
Oil markets were pressured throughout 2025 by concerns of excess supply in 2026. Although OPEC+ gradually raised production last year, it paused further increases in December due to persistent oversupply worries.
Nonetheless, crude prices climbed to a six-month high in early 2026 amid escalating Middle East tensions, while signs of global economic resilience fueled expectations that demand would stay firm.
Last week, I attended the 2026 Harvard Presidents’ Seminar with leading executives and thinkers, where Ambassador Kevin Rudd, former Australian prime minister, stood out. He warned that the post–World War II rules-based global order is likely fading, giving way to a more 19th-century style world defined by power politics and spheres of influence. Rudd, a realist rather than an alarmist, argued that a strong U.S. remains essential for global stability, while a weakened U.S. risks creating power vacuums that China and Russia are ready to exploit.
A Fracturing Global Order?
For roughly eight decades after World War II, the United States played a central role in shaping the global order—promoting open markets, free trade, democratic expansion, and the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency—underpinning a period of relative stability.
According to Rudd, that chapter may now be closing. Democratic governance is weakening worldwide, while the number of armed conflicts has climbed to its highest level since World War II.
China and Russia are making their ambitions increasingly explicit. Just last week, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin reaffirmed their deepening partnership, pledging mutual support across economic, military, and ideological fronts. With the New START treaty expiring this month, the final pillar of nuclear arms control between the United States and Russia has now fallen away.
Redrawing the Global Playbook
Rudd, who has written two major books on Xi Jinping, cautioned that China’s current leader is far from a pragmatist in the mold of Deng Xiaoping, whose market-oriented reforms in the 1970s set China on its path to global prominence. Instead, Xi is best understood as a Marxist-Leninist nationalist.
Under his leadership, China has moved beyond simply operating within existing global rules to actively reshaping them. The Chinese Communist Party is pursuing an all-encompassing strategy that spans nearly every sphere—military modernization, industrial leadership, energy self-sufficiency, and more. As I noted back in October, I see China’s expansive Belt and Road Initiative as a Trojan horse.
For Xi’s government, economic strength and national security are inseparable, a reality most evident in its approach to energy and technology.
China’s Sweeping Energy Expansion
As the U.S. continues to oscillate on energy policy, China has been pressing ahead at full speed. Since 2021, it has added more power-generating capacity than the United States has built over its entire 250-year history—an astonishing feat achieved in just four years.
In 2025 alone, China brought online 543 gigawatts of new capacity across solar, wind, coal, nuclear, and gas. Looking ahead, BloombergNEF projects an additional 3.4 terawatts over the next five years—nearly six times what the U.S. is expected to add. The objective is clear: to ensure that China’s next wave of industries, including AI, robotics, and advanced manufacturing, is never constrained by energy shortages.
Clean Energy Emerges as the Next Growth Engine
As I’ve noted before, both Elon Musk and NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang have warned that China’s enormous power surplus could give it a decisive edge in AI computing—and the data backs that up.
In 2025, clean energy accounted for more than a third of China’s GDP growth and over 90% of new investment. Industries such as solar, electric vehicles, and battery technology generated more than $2.1 trillion in economic output, roughly on par with the GDP of Canada or Brazil. Viewed on its own, China’s clean energy sector would rank as the world’s eighth-largest economy.
Meanwhile, in Washington, progress remains stalled by politics.
By contrast, the United States has struggled to execute large-scale energy buildouts amid political gridlock and partisan divides. While China plans decades ahead, U.S. policymakers too often remain focused on the next election cycle.
According to a recent report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), China is on course to overtake the U.S. across a wide range of what it terms “national power industries.” These span military sectors such as guided missiles and tanks, dual-use industries like electronic displays and semiconductors, and enabling industries including automobiles and heavy construction equipment.
That said, the U.S. continues to commit heavily to defense spending. Congress recently approved an $839 billion defense bill—$8 billion more than requested by the Pentagon—with funding directed toward key systems such as the F-35, the B-21 bomber, and the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile program. More than $13 billion is also allocated to space and missile defense under President Trump’s Golden Dome initiative.
What This Means for Investors
Equity markets may already be signaling the start of a new investment cycle. In January, leadership shifted toward small-cap, domestically oriented stocks. While the S&P 500 hit new highs with a gain of about 1.4%, the Russell 2000 jumped 5.4%, markedly outperforming large caps. Small caps also logged a 15-day streak of outperformance versus the S&P—the longest since May 1996.
This strength does not appear to be a one-off. Since the beginning of Trump’s second term, the Russell 2000 has edged ahead of the S&P 500, rising roughly 17% versus 15% as of Friday, February 6. Some small-cap companies, though not all, tend to be less exposed to tariffs and could benefit over time in a less globalized world.
That said, careful stock selection is critical. Around 40% of Russell 2000 constituents are currently unprofitable.
Finally, with precious metals retreating from recent highs, investors may want to consider buying the dip. A 10% allocation to gold—split evenly between physical bullion and high-quality mining stocks—can help diversify portfolios, with regular rebalancing remaining essential.
Oil prices slipped in Asian trading on Monday as the United States and Iran indicated they would continue negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program, easing concerns about heightened tensions in the Middle East.
Crude prices were also weighed down by a firmer U.S. dollar ahead of a busy week of key U.S. economic data, extending losses after a roughly 2% decline last week. Investors are additionally awaiting major economic releases from China, the world’s largest oil importer.
Brent crude futures for April dropped 0.7% to $67.57 a barrel by 21:17 ET (02:17 GMT), while West Texas Intermediate futures also fell 0.7% to $63.12 a barrel.
U.S. and Iran agree to press ahead with nuclear negotiations
Washington and Tehran said over the weekend that indirect nuclear negotiations will continue following what both sides described as constructive talks in Oman on Friday.
The statements helped ease fears of an imminent military confrontation in the Middle East, particularly after the United States had earlier deployed several warships to the region.
Concerns over a potential conflict had previously pushed traders to build a higher risk premium into oil prices, with former President Donald Trump also issuing threats of military action against Iran.
However, the likelihood of a full-scale war in the region now appears reduced, even as Tehran indicated it will continue advancing its nuclear enrichment activities.
Markets await key U.S. and China economic data
Attention this week is also on a slate of major economic data from the world’s largest oil-consuming economies.
In the United States, January nonfarm payrolls figures are due on Wednesday, followed by CPI inflation data on Friday. These releases will be closely scrutinized for further signals on the interest-rate outlook, as markets continue to assess the direction of monetary policy under Warsh.
In China, January CPI data is also scheduled for release on Friday, providing fresh insight into conditions in the world’s biggest oil importer.
The data arrives just ahead of China’s week-long Lunar New Year holiday, which is expected to boost fuel demand across the country.
Nasdaq has put forward a proposal to accelerate the inclusion of newly listed large companies into its indexes, aiming to reduce the lengthy delays that have often kept major IPOs and exchange transfers out of benchmark indexes for months.
The move comes as 2026 is shaping up to be a particularly active year for high-profile listings, with potential IPOs from companies such as Elon Musk’s SpaceX and artificial intelligence startup Anthropic. According to a source familiar with the discussions, advisers to SpaceX—following its recent acquisition of xAI—have contacted major index providers, including Nasdaq, to explore earlier-than-usual index entry. SpaceX did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and Nasdaq declined to comment.
Under the proposed “Fast Entry” rule, a newly listed Nasdaq company would qualify for expedited inclusion if its market capitalization ranks within the top 40 of existing index constituents. Eligible companies would receive at least five trading days’ notice and be added to the index after 15 trading sessions.
The proposal would waive the usual seasoning and liquidity requirements. Rather than replacing an existing constituent, the new entrant would temporarily expand the index’s size until the next annual reconstitution, consistent with Nasdaq’s approach to handling spin-offs.
Michael Ashley Schulman, partner and chief investment officer at Running Point Capital Advisors, said faster inclusion would enhance Nasdaq’s appeal for large issuers by improving liquidity and narrowing bid-ask spreads through greater passive fund ownership.
The lack of a fast-track mechanism has frequently created a gap between index composition and broader market realities, particularly given the scale and market influence of newly listed giants. Investors also expect major additions to be reflected promptly in the index, something the current framework often fails to deliver.
The proposed rule could prove especially consequential in 2026, as artificial intelligence–driven technology leaders may seek valuations in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Nasdaq remains the preferred exchange for U.S. technology heavyweights, including trillion-dollar companies such as Alphabet and Nvidia.
The Nasdaq 100 index, which includes the exchange’s largest listed firms, is closely watched by investors and analysts and is widely viewed as a key gauge of the health of technology and growth-focused sectors.
“As this proposal shows, Nasdaq is signaling that no company is too large and no system is too established to be improved,” Schulman said.
Canada and China reached a preliminary trade agreement on Friday to sharply reduce tariffs on electric vehicles and canola, pledging to dismantle trade barriers and deepen strategic cooperation during Prime Minister Mark Carney’s visit.
On his first trip to China since 2017 by a Canadian prime minister, Carney aims to repair relations with Canada’s second-largest trading partner after the United States, following months of diplomatic outreach.
Canada will initially permit imports of up to 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles at a 6.1% most-favoured-nation tariff, Prime Minister Mark Carney said following talks with Chinese leaders, including President Xi Jinping.
The move marks a sharp reversal from the 100% tariff imposed on Chinese EVs in 2024 under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, in line with similar measures taken by the United States. China shipped 41,678 electric vehicles to Canada in 2023.
“This restores access to levels seen before the recent trade disputes, but within a framework that offers significantly more benefits for Canadians,” Carney said, adding that the import quota would be expanded gradually to around 70,000 vehicles over the next five years.
“To build a globally competitive electric vehicle industry, Canada must learn from innovative partners, gain access to their supply chains, and stimulate domestic demand,” Carney said, distancing himself from former prime minister Justin Trudeau’s view that tariffs were necessary to shield local manufacturers from subsidised Chinese competitors.
Canada’s decision to ease EV tariffs runs counter to U.S. policy, drawing criticism from some members of President Donald Trump’s cabinet ahead of a planned review of the U.S.–Canada–Mexico trade agreement. However, Trump himself voiced support for Carney’s approach.
“That’s exactly what he should be doing. Signing trade deals is good for him. If you can strike a deal with China, you should take it,” Trump said at the White House.
AGRI-FOOD PARTNERSHIP: Ontario Premier Doug Ford denounces the deal.
“The federal government is effectively opening the door to a surge of low-cost Chinese-made electric vehicles without firm assurances of comparable or timely investment in Canada’s economy, auto industry, or supply chains,” Ford said in a post on X.
China imposed retaliatory tariffs in March on more than $2.6 billion worth of Canadian agricultural and food exports — including canola oil and meal — in response to tariffs introduced by Trudeau. Additional duties on canola seed followed in August.
As a result, China’s imports of Canadian goods fell by 10.4% in 2025.
Under the new agreement, Canada expects China to cut tariffs on canola seed to a combined rate of around 15% by March 1, down from 84%, Carney said. He added that discriminatory tariffs on Canadian canola meal, lobsters, crabs and peas are also expected to be lifted from March 1 through at least the end of the year.
Canadian canola futures climbed.
The agreements are expected to generate nearly $3 billion in export orders for Canadian farmers, fishers and food processors, Carney said.
China’s Ministry of Commerce said it would adjust anti-dumping duties on canola and lift anti-discrimination measures on certain Canadian agricultural and seafood products, citing Canada’s decision to lower tariffs on electric vehicles.
Carney added that President Xi Jinping had agreed in principle to grant visa-free travel for Canadians visiting China, though further details were not provided.
In a statement released by state-run Xinhua, the two countries said they would resume high-level economic and financial talks, expand trade and investment, and deepen cooperation in sectors including agriculture, oil, gas and green energy.
Carney said Canada plans to double the size of its power grid over the next 15 years, creating potential opportunities for Chinese investment, including in offshore wind projects. He also said Canada is ramping up liquefied natural gas exports to Asia, with annual production set to reach 50 million tonnes by 2030, all of which will be shipped to Asian markets.
Carney says China has become “more predictable”
Given the growing complications in Canada’s trade relationship with the United States, it is unsurprising that Carney’s government is seeking to strengthen trade and investment ties with Beijing, which offers a vast market for Canadian agricultural exports, said Even Rogers Pay of Beijing-based consultancy Trivium China.
U.S. President Donald Trump has imposed tariffs on certain Canadian goods and has even suggested that the longtime U.S. ally could become America’s 51st state. China, which has also been targeted by Trump’s tariffs, is eager to deepen cooperation with a G7 country traditionally seen as part of the U.S. sphere of influence.
Asked whether China had become a more predictable and reliable partner than the United States, Carney said recent engagement with Beijing had delivered greater clarity and tangible outcomes. “Looking at how our relationship with China has evolved in recent months, it has become more predictable, and we are seeing results from that,” he said.
Carney added that he had also discussed Greenland with President Xi Jinping, saying the two leaders found their views broadly aligned. Trump has recently revived his claim to the semi-autonomous Danish territory, prompting NATO members to push back against U.S. criticism that Greenland is insufficiently defended.
Analysts said the warming of ties between Canada and China could alter the political and economic backdrop of Sino-U.S. competition, though Ottawa is unlikely to shift decisively away from Washington.
“Canada remains a core U.S. ally and is deeply integrated into American security and intelligence systems,” said Sun Chenghao, a fellow at Tsinghua University’s Centre for International Security and Strategy. “A strategic realignment away from Washington is therefore highly unlikely.”
The recent rally in Japanese equities, sparked by Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s announcement of a snap election, could lose momentum if she ultimately achieves her political objectives, as increased fiscal spending risks stoking inflation and pushing up government borrowing costs.
Japan’s Topix index jumped over 4% this week, marking its strongest advance since July, as investors revived the so-called “Takaichi trade,” betting on heavier government expenditure. Takaichi is seeking to strengthen her grip on power by expanding her party’s seat count, which would give her greater latitude to pursue expansionary economic policies.
Market participants believe Takaichi could follow in the footsteps of her mentor, former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, whose stimulus-driven Abenomics era propelled asset prices. She has identified sectors such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors, defense, space, and content industries as key targets for investment.
Although Japanese equities are once again following a familiar pattern of rallying ahead of Lower House elections, sustained upside may hinge on the specifics of Takaichi’s fiscal agenda. Meanwhile, bond investors are demanding higher yields to compensate for holding Japanese government debt, even as global bond yields ease.
“Rising break-even inflation rates suggest the market is pricing in looser, more inflationary policies after the election, with inflation staying above the Bank of Japan’s target for longer,” said Aninda Mitra, head of Asia macro and investment strategy at BNY Investments.
Economists anticipate that Japan’s consumer inflation will ease to below 2.0% this year — falling under the Bank of Japan’s target for the first time in five years — helped in part by reductions in gasoline taxes and other regulated prices.
However, the yen’s decline to a more than one-year low of 159.45 per dollar on Wednesday, and to its weakest level since 1992 on a trade-weighted basis, has reignited inflation worries. The currency’s weakness is also eroding its traditional support for exporter stocks. Pressure on the yen has intensified as Takaichi’s dovish stance on monetary policy is seen as constraining the BOJ’s ability to raise interest rates swiftly.
“The yen is the biggest risk factor for Takaichi,” said Chisa Kobayashi, Japan equity strategist at UBS SuMi TRUST Wealth Management. “Further depreciation could push inflation higher, dampen consumer spending, and eventually weaken voter backing.”
Neil Newman, head of strategy at Astris Advisory Japan, said a Takaichi election victory could drive another 5% rise in the Nikkei 225 Stock Average. “With the government planning targeted investments in strategic sectors, a surge in capital expenditure is likely,” he said.
Despite Takaichi’s strong approval ratings, which have led many investors to expect a comfortable win, some analysts are growing more cautious after Komeito — previously a junior coalition partner of the Liberal Democratic Party — shifted toward cooperation with the main opposition party.
As a result, the election outcome has become increasingly uncertain, said Shinichi Ichikawa, senior fellow at Pictet Asset Management Japan.
“The one thing that’s clear is that both camps will be compelled to campaign on bold spending promises to attract voters,” he said.
WTI prices rise amid growing supply concerns linked to escalating unrest in Iran.
President Trump has warned Tehran against using force on protesters, while Iran has warned the U.S. and Israel against any intervention.
However, oil price gains may be capped due to anticipated resumption of Venezuelan exports and forecasts of a potential market oversupply.
West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude extended its gains for a third consecutive session, trading around $59.10 per barrel during Asian hours on Monday. The rise in oil prices is driven by growing supply concerns amid escalating protests in Iran. As OPEC’s fourth-largest producer, exporting nearly 2 million barrels per day, any conflict escalation poses a significant risk to global supply.
The unrest, now in its third week and having reportedly resulted in hundreds of casualties, has prompted Iranian authorities to signal a harsher crackdown. Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump warned Tehran against using force on protesters and suggested possible intervention if the situation worsens, while Iranian officials cautioned against any U.S. or Israeli involvement.
Oil price gains may be restrained by expectations that Venezuelan crude exports could resume following political changes in the country, with the U.S. poised to receive or manage up to 50 million barrels of sanctioned oil under a new arrangement with interim authorities. This potential influx of supply has tempered some of the upside from geopolitical risk.
However, uncertainty remains over the timing and scale of Venezuelan shipments, as shifting U.S. policy and the logistics of restarting exports from dilapidated ports and vessels cloud the outlook for actual flows.
Meanwhile, traders are watching for possible supply disruptions from Russia amid ongoing Ukraine attacks on energy infrastructure and the prospect of tougher U.S. sanctions on Russian energy exports — factors that could add upward pressure on prices if they materially reduce output.
Oil prices remained mostly steady during Asian trading on Monday as investors balanced concerns over potential supply disruptions due to escalating unrest in Iran against the likelihood of more Venezuelan crude returning to the market.
As of 22:23 ET (03:23 GMT), March Brent crude futures rose slightly by 0.1% to $63.39 per barrel, while West Texas Intermediate (WTI) futures also increased by 0.1% to $59.15 per barrel. Both benchmarks had gained over 3% last week amid heightened geopolitical tensions.
Iran’s lethal protests raise fears of oil supply disruption
Markets have been closely monitoring Iran, a major oil producer in the Middle East, where widespread anti-government protests have escalated in recent days. According to rights organizations, over 500 people have died amid the unrest.
Iranian authorities have warned that U.S. military bases in the region would be targeted if Washington intervenes in support of the protesters. This threat has intensified concerns about a wider regional conflict that could disrupt oil shipments passing through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery for global energy supplies.
U.S. President Donald Trump adopted a tougher stance on Iran last week, declaring that the U.S. would not remain passive if Iranian forces continue harsh crackdowns on demonstrators.
“Iran, as the fourth-largest OPEC member, produces about 3.2 million barrels per day of crude oil, which represents a significant supply risk for the market,” ING analysts noted in a recent report.
Resumption of Venezuelan oil exports limits upside in oil prices
However, gains were limited by news from Venezuela, where U.S. officials indicated they might ease restrictions on the country’s oil sector. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said additional sanctions could be lifted as early as next week to help facilitate the sale of Venezuelan crude and support oil exports.
President Donald Trump also revealed plans for Venezuela to turn over up to 30 – 50 million barrels of previously sanctioned oil to the United States.
Despite the prospects of renewed output, major oil companies are cautious about re-entering the Venezuelan market without substantial legal and political reforms. ExxonMobil has described the country as “uninvestable” without major changes, and analysts note that firms whose assets were nationalised previously may be reluctant to return without adequate compensation.
Tehran has declared it will attack Israel and U.S. military bases in the region if Washington intervenes militarily to support protesters in Iran.
Speaking before the Iranian Parliament today, Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf accused the U.S. and Israel of “supporting recent riots and causing unrest” across Iran. He warned that Israel and U.S. military bases in the region would be considered “legitimate targets” if the U.S. launches any attacks against Iran.
According to Reuters, Israeli authorities are currently on high alert due to the possibility of U.S. intervention to back the protest movement in Iran.
The New York Times quoted knowledgeable U.S. officials saying that in recent days, President Donald Trump has received reports on potential military interventions in Iran as he considers acting on his threats to attack the country over accusations of “suppressing protesters.”
While Trump has not made a final decision, officials indicate he is seriously weighing the possibility of launching strikes in response to Iran’s crackdown on demonstrations. Various options have been presented to the president, including attacks on non-military sites in Tehran.
According to sources, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke by phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on January 10 to discuss the protests in Iran, the situation in Syria, and the peace agreement in Gaza. Earlier that day, Rubio posted on social media expressing U.S. support for “the brave people of Iran.”
When asked about the New York Times report, the White House referred to President Trump’s recent public statements and social media posts.
“Perhaps Iran is closer to freedom than ever before. America is ready to help,” Trump wrote on social media on January 10.
The day before, he warned of “very strong” retaliation if Iran causes protester deaths as in previous incidents. He noted the demonstrators in Iran face “extreme danger” and said the U.S. will closely monitor developments.
“Iran better not start shooting because if they do, we will shoot back,” Trump said, but emphasized this did not mean American troops would directly deploy to Iran.
The protests, which began on December 28, 2025, sparked by small traders upset over the economic situation and the falling rial, have spread in Tehran and other cities in recent days. Iranian officials accuse “terrorist agents” from Israel and the U.S. of inciting the protests and escalating violence, claims denied by the U.S. State Department, which says Tehran is “distracting attention from internal problems.”
International organizations citing local sources report that the Iranian government has blocked nationwide information flow, cut Internet access, and limited international communications, making it difficult to assess the full scope of the protests. Some human rights groups abroad report over 100 protesters have died and more than 2,000 have been arrested since late December 2025.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei declared that the government will not back down before the protests, claiming that the past two weeks of unrest are caused by agitators aiming to please the U.S. leadership. He mocked Trump’s intervention warnings, urging the U.S. president to focus on domestic issues.
Iranian Judiciary Chief Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei warned of “severe, maximum, and merciless” punishment for rioters, while the intelligence branch of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) vowed not to allow the protests to continue.
Oil companies seeking to take part in newly approved exports of Venezuelan crude to the United States after the removal of President Nicolás Maduro are holding urgent talks to secure tankers and organize operations to safely transfer oil from ships and deteriorating Venezuelan ports, according to four sources familiar with the matter.
Trading firms and energy companies such as Chevron, Vitol, and Trafigura are vying for U.S. government contracts to export Venezuelan crude, the sources said, after President Donald Trump announced that Venezuela could deliver up to 50 million barrels of previously sanctioned oil to the United States.
Trafigura told the White House in a meeting on Friday that its first vessel is expected to load within the coming week.
After months under a U.S. blockade, Venezuela has been storing crude aboard tankers and has nearly exhausted its onshore storage capacity. Many of these vessels are aging, poorly maintained, and subject to sanctions. Due to insurance and liability restrictions, other ships cannot directly interact with sanctioned tankers—even if U.S. licenses are granted—sources added.
Onshore storage facilities have also suffered years of neglect, creating additional risks for companies attempting to load the oil.
Shipping firms including Maersk Tankers and American Eagle Tankers are among those seeking to expand ship-to-ship transfer operations in Venezuela, according to three of the sources.
According to one source, Maersk Tankers could reuse the ship-to-shore-to-ship logistics model it previously employed in Venezuela’s Amuay Bay. The company already operates in nearby Aruba and Curaçao, whose waters are frequently used for transferring Venezuelan oil. However, while such transfers are feasible in Aruba and at U.S. ports, they come at a higher cost.
In a statement, Maersk said its presence in Venezuela remains limited, with only 17 employees in the country. The company confirmed that all staff are safe and accounted for, and that there have been no changes to its ocean services. Operations are continuing with only minor delays, and the situation is being closely monitored.
Another shipping source noted that transfer operations will be further complicated by a shortage of smaller vessels needed to move oil from storage tankers to piers, where it can then be transferred to other ships, as well as by poorly maintained machinery and equipment.
American Eagle Tankers (AET), which already facilitates Chevron’s shipments of Venezuelan crude to the United States, is being contacted by potential customers seeking to expand its capacity in the region, two sources said.
Neither AET nor Chevron immediately responded to requests for comment.
Sources added that while exports could potentially return to the roughly 500,000 barrels per day that Venezuela shipped to the United States before sanctions—allowing stockpiles to be drawn down within 90 to 120 days—reaching that level will be difficult if crude must be sourced from both offshore tankers and onshore storage facilities.
Companies are also fiercely competing for loading slots at Venezuela’s main Jose oil terminal, where both capacity and operating speed are constrained. Chevron, a major joint-venture partner in the country, is working aggressively to maintain its preferential access to Venezuelan terminals while preparing its vessel fleet, according to one source.
Meanwhile, oil firms including Chevron, Vitol, and Trafigura are already securing supplies of much-needed naphtha, a Venezuelan industry source said. Naphtha is commonly blended with heavy Venezuelan crude to reduce its density, making it easier to transport and refine.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced that Australia and several other countries would participate in a meeting of finance ministers from the Group of Seven (G7) advanced economies, which he is hosting in Washington on Monday to address critical minerals.
Bessent mentioned that he has been advocating for this dedicated meeting on critical minerals since the G7 leaders’ summit last summer, and the finance ministers previously held a virtual session on the topic in December.
India was also invited to attend the meeting, Bessent told Reuters during a visit to Winnebago Industries’ engineering lab near Minneapolis, though he was uncertain if India had accepted the invitation.
It is not yet clear which other countries have been invited.
The G7 consists of the United States, Britain, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, and the European Union. Many members heavily rely on China for rare earth minerals. In June, the group agreed on a plan to secure supply chains and strengthen their economies.
In October, Australia signed an agreement with the U.S. to challenge China’s dominance in critical minerals, involving an $8.5 billion project pipeline and Australia’s proposed strategic reserve. This reserve will provide essential metals such as rare earths and lithium, which are vulnerable to supply disruptions.
Following this, Canberra reported interest from Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore.
China currently dominates the critical minerals supply chain, refining between 47% and 87% of copper, lithium, cobalt, graphite, and rare earths, according to the International Energy Agency. These minerals are essential for defense technology, semiconductors, renewable energy components, batteries, and refining operations.
In recent years, Western countries have aimed to lessen their reliance on China’s critical minerals due to China’s implementation of stringent export restrictions on rare earth elements.
Monday’s meeting follows reports that China recently started limiting rare earth exports and powerful magnets to Japanese companies, and also banned the export of dual-use goods to the Japanese military.
Bessent noted that China continues to honor its commitments to buy U.S. soybeans and supply critical minerals to American companies.Monday’s meeting follows reports that China recently started limiting rare earth exports and powerful magnets to Japanese companies, and also banned the export of dual-use goods to the Japanese military.
Bessent noted that China continues to honor its commitments to buy U.S. soybeans and supply critical minerals to American companies.
The self-driving car industry has experienced a cycle of high hopes, costly setbacks, and ongoing delays. From Tesla’s (NASDAQ:TSLA) frequent missed deadlines to General Motors (NYSE:GM) shutting down its Cruise autonomous division following a pedestrian accident, achieving fully autonomous vehicles has been much tougher than early developers expected.
However, a fresh wave of innovation driven by artificial intelligence and strategic collaborations is revitalizing this groundbreaking technology.
At the forefront of this resurgence is Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA), the chipmaker whose leadership in AI computing is now expanding into the automotive sector, providing Western car manufacturers with a potential way to rival China’s rapidly progressing autonomous driving advancements.
The Present State of Autonomous Driving in the U.S.
The U.S. self-driving industry is currently at a critical juncture, with only a few companies still seriously competing. In 2019, Tesla CEO Elon Musk confidently predicted that a million autonomous vehicles would be on the roads within a year. However, the company only rolled out a limited robotaxi pilot program in late 2025, falling six years behind schedule. A major challenge has been the countless unpredictable scenarios, known as edge cases, that can confuse autonomous systems.
Traditional automakers have mostly pulled back from the sector. General Motors shut down its Cruise autonomous division following a serious incident where one of its vehicles hit and dragged a pedestrian.
Similarly, Ford Motor ceased its internal autonomous vehicle projects, choosing to withdraw from the capital-heavy competition. Alphabet’s (NASDAQ:GOOGL) Waymo remains the only company maintaining consistent operations, currently offering Level 4 robotaxi services in several U.S. cities.
At the same time, China has made significant advances supported by strong government backing and rapid deployment. Chinese automakers now account for about seventy percent of global electric vehicle production, while companies such as BYD, Baidu, and Pony.ai are growing their robotaxi services throughout Asia and the Middle East.
The Chinese government recently authorized two vehicles with Level 3 autonomous driving capabilities, permitting hands-free driving. This regulatory endorsement, along with better network infrastructure and more affordable costs, has established China as a rising leader in autonomous technology.
Nvidia’s Self-Driving Platform: Revolutionizing the Industry
At CES 2026 in Las Vegas, Nvidia introduced its solution to the autonomous driving challenge: the Alpamayo platform. Simply put, Alpamayo is a comprehensive toolkit that enables automakers to develop self-driving systems without starting from zero.
The platform features reasoning models that help vehicles interpret and respond to their environment, simulation tools for safely testing various scenarios, and datasets for training the AI. It can process data from cameras and radar sensors to make decisions on steering, braking, and acceleration while also providing explanations for its choices.
What makes Alpamayo especially noteworthy is that Nvidia has made it open-source, allowing any company to use and adapt it freely. This approach contrasts sharply with Tesla’s proprietary model.
Industry experts liken this to the smartphone battle between Apple’s (NASDAQ:AAPL) closed ecosystem and Android’s open platform. By offering a shared foundation, Nvidia empowers automakers to concentrate on differentiating their products rather than reinventing fundamental technology, potentially speeding up the entire industry’s development.
The platform is quickly gaining momentum. Mercedes-Benz revealed that its upcoming CLA model will incorporate AI-driven driving features powered by Nvidia’s technology, set to hit U.S. roads later this year. Additionally, a robotaxi partnership involving Lucid Group, Nuro, and Uber plans to leverage Nvidia’s chips and platform.
Ali Kani, Nvidia’s general manager of the automotive division, expressed optimism that recent fundamental AI improvements have resolved critical issues that once hindered self-driving technology, indicating the industry might be nearing a major breakthrough.
NVDA Share Forecast and What Investors Should Know
Nvidia’s stock mirrors its leading position in several AI-driven markets. As of January 2026, NVDA shares are trading around $185 each, with a market cap near $4.5 trillion, ranking it among the world’s most valuable companies.
The stock has delivered remarkable returns, rising more than 32% in the past year and an impressive 1,297% over five years, significantly outperforming the S&P 500’s 81% gain during the same timeframe.
Despite its high valuation, key financial indicators remain strong. In Q3 FY26, Nvidia reported revenues of $57 billion and earnings of $31.8 billion, surpassing analyst expectations for earnings per share by four cents.
The trailing price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio stands at about 46, while the forward P/E is 24, reflecting the market’s high growth expectations. However, a PEG ratio of 0.70 indicates that the stock’s valuation could be reasonable relative to its anticipated earnings growth. Nvidia continues to demonstrate strong profitability, with a profit margin above 53% and a return on equity exceeding 100%.
Analysts generally hold a positive outlook on Nvidia’s future. The average price target of $252 suggests about a 36% potential increase from current levels, with forecasts ranging from $140 on the low side to $352 at the high end. Most analysts have Buy or Strong Buy ratings, highlighting sustained strong demand for AI infrastructure.
While Nvidia’s automotive division offers a growing avenue beyond its core data center business, investors should be aware that the stock exhibits high volatility, with a beta of 2.31. The upcoming earnings report on February 25, 2026, is expected to shed more light on the company’s progress.
Oil prices advanced during Asian trading on Friday, extending the previous session’s rebound as investors focused on possible supply disruptions in Russia and Iran amid geopolitical risks.
At the same time, fears of an immediate rise in Venezuelan oil output subsided after the U.S. Senate approved a measure requiring congressional authorization for further military action by President Trump.
Analysts said oil production in the country is unlikely to increase sharply in the near term, even with U.S. intervention.
Brent crude futures for March rose 0.7% to $62.44 a barrel, while WTI futures gained 0.7% to $58.03 by 21:04 ET (02:04 GMT). Both benchmarks rebounded to levels seen before last week’s U.S. military action in Venezuela after posting more than 4% gains on Thursday.
Oil prices were supported by positive inflation data from China, the world’s top oil importer, signaling a tentative economic recovery. However, gains were limited as traders remained cautious ahead of key U.S. nonfarm payrolls data that could affect interest rate expectations.
Markets focus on potential supply disruptions in Russia and Iran
Concerns about possible supply disruptions in Russia and the Middle East lent support to oil prices this week.
The conflict between Russia and Ukraine showed little sign of resolution, with ongoing military actions. A drone strike on a tanker headed to Russia in the Black Sea heightened fears of further interruptions to Russian crude supplies.
Compounding these concerns, reports indicated that U.S. President Donald Trump plans to endorse a bipartisan bill imposing even tougher restrictions on countries trading with Russia, aiming to increase pressure on Moscow to seek a ceasefire.
Meanwhile, Iraq’s government approved a move to nationalize operations at the West Qurna 2 oilfield—one of the world’s largest—in an effort to avoid supply disruptions stemming from U.S. sanctions on Russia.
In Iran, escalating nationwide anti-government protests have raised worries about potential impacts on oil production. The government responded with a countrywide internet blackout as demonstrations spread across major cities protesting the Nezam regime.
Market concerns over Venezuelan oil supply ease
Oil prices benefited from easing worries that a U.S. intervention in Venezuela would lead to a significant near-term surge in global crude supply.
Earlier this week, Trump stated that Caracas could deliver up to $3 billion worth of oil to the U.S. and indicated plans for long-term U.S. influence over the country.
However, Congress has advanced legislation that may restrict U.S. military involvement in Venezuela.
Many analysts noted that while U.S. involvement could eventually help boost Venezuelan oil production, persistent political turmoil and deteriorated infrastructure make any near‑term surge in output unlikely.
Oil prices initially plunged after the U.S. detained Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and signaled control over the country’s oil industry, but prices had fully recovered by Friday as markets judged immediate changes to supply to be limited.
Still, crude prices were experiencing their steepest annual decline in five years in 2025, weighed down by concerns over a widening supply glut and sluggish demand growth—an outlook echoed by major global institutions forecasting continued oversupply into 2026.
Oil prices weakened yesterday after President Trump said Venezuela would supply large volumes of sanctioned crude to the United States.
Energy
Developments in Venezuela remain in the spotlight, adding further downside pressure to oil prices. President Trump said Venezuela is prepared to sell up to 50 million barrels of sanctioned crude to the United States, a move that could also immediately weigh on Canadian crude exports to the U.S.
Such a deal would effectively open a release channel for Venezuelan oil, which has struggled to reach global markets due to a U.S. blockade on sanctioned tankers entering and leaving the country. Redirecting these barrels to the U.S. could ease storage constraints and reduce the need for Venezuela to curb production.
The U.S. Department of Energy confirmed that Venezuelan crude is already being marketed internationally, while Trump’s energy secretary stated that Washington intends to maintain long-term control over future Venezuelan oil sales. This strategy is reinforced by the continued tanker blockade, with two additional vessels reportedly seized yesterday.
Washington’s growing influence over Venezuela’s oil sector also raises uncertainty about the country’s future role within OPEC.
Meanwhile, Energy Information Administration (EIA) data showed U.S. crude inventories fell by 3.83 million barrels last week, the sharpest draw since late October. However, product balances were more bearish, as gasoline stocks rose by 7.7 million barrels and distillate inventories increased by 5.6 million barrels.
These inventory builds point to refinery utilization remaining firm, while implied demand for both products softened somewhat over the past week.
European gas prices moved higher yesterday, with TTF closing more than 2.5% up on the day. Colder conditions across parts of Europe, along with forecasts for below-average temperatures in the days ahead, are supporting the market. The current cold spell has also accelerated storage drawdowns, with EU gas inventories now at 58% of capacity, compared with a five-year average of 72%.
The latest positioning data show that investment funds cut their net short exposure in TTF for a third straight week. Funds purchased 6.2 TWh during the latest reporting period, reducing their net short position to 72.4 TWh.
Oil prices climbed during Asian trading on Thursday, regaining some losses after sharp declines triggered by worries over rising Venezuelan crude supplies.
Additionally, stronger-than-anticipated weekly declines in U.S. oil inventories supported the price recovery. Ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine also contributed to maintaining a risk premium in the market.
March Brent crude futures increased by 0.7% to reach $60.38 per barrel, while West Texas Intermediate (WTI) futures also gained 0.7%, settling at $56.28 per barrel as of 20:25 ET (01:25 GMT). Both benchmarks had fallen more than 1% over the previous two sessions.
Attention turns to US – Venezuela oil agreement after Trump highlights up to $3 billion in planned crude sales
Oil markets are closely watching the impact of a new agreement between the U.S. and Venezuela on global oil supplies.
U.S. President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that Venezuela will deliver between 30 million and 50 million barrels of oil to the U.S., valued at up to $3 billion, shortly after U.S. forces detained Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Trump also appeared to encourage multiple U.S. oil companies to expand production activities in Venezuela, with Chevron Corp (NYSE: CVX) leading these efforts. According to Reuters, Chevron is negotiating to broaden its license to operate in the country.
Currently, Chevron is the only major U.S. oil company active in Venezuela, benefiting from special government exemptions that shield it from stringent sanctions imposed on the nation.
Markets are worried that a significant rise in Venezuelan oil output could further swell global supplies, adding to prevailing fears of an oil glut in 2026. Traders are already pricing in ample supply conditions, with expectations that any additional barrels from Venezuela might weigh on crude prices.
However, analysts caution that any meaningful increase in Venezuelan production is unlikely to happen quickly, given the country’s deep political instability and the extensive investment needed to rebuild its dilapidated oil infrastructure after recent upheavals.
A Financial Times report also noted that U.S. oil firms are seeking strong legal and financial guarantees from the U.S. government before committing to major investments in Venezuela’s oil sector, reflecting industry hesitancy amid uncertain policy and market conditions.
U.S. crude stockpiles decline beyond forecasts
Government data released Wednesday revealed that U.S. oil inventories fell by 3.8 million barrels in the week ending January 2, significantly exceeding expectations of a 1.2 million barrel decline.
This reduction was almost double the 1.9 million barrel draw reported the previous week, bolstering confidence that demand remains robust in the world’s largest fuel consumer.
Attention this week centers on several key U.S. economic reports, especially the December nonfarm payrolls data set to be released on Friday, which is expected to influence interest rate forecasts.
After months of rising tensions, the United States launched a major military operation in Venezuela on 3 January 2026, resulting in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. U.S. President Donald Trump confirmed the operation, saying Washington would administer Venezuela until a stable transition government could be established. This marks one of the most dramatic U.S. interventions in Latin America in decades, with Maduro removed from power and taken into U.S. custody.
Maduro, long a focal point of U.S. sanctions and foreign policy pressure, was transported to the United States to face federal charges—such as narco‑terrorism and drug trafficking—filed in the Southern District of New York.
Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, and the sudden change in leadership carries significant geopolitical and economic implications well beyond its borders.
Why Did the US Capture Maduro?
Nicolás Maduro rose through the Venezuelan political system under socialist leader Hugo Chávez and became president in 2013. His time in power was widely criticized domestically and internationally, with opponents accusing him of suppressing dissent, restricting freedoms, and holding elections that lacked credibility.
Relations with Washington deteriorated sharply, especially under the Trump administration. U.S. officials accused Maduro’s government of involvement in drug trafficking and creating conditions that fueled migration toward the United States. They also branded elements of his regime—including the Cartel of the Suns—as a terrorist organization.
Tensions escalated in 2025 when the U.S. increased the bounty for Maduro’s arrest to $50 million and expanded military pressure in the region, including strikes on vessels the U.S. claimed were tied to drug smuggling.
On 3 January 2026, after months of military buildup and diplomatic pressure, U.S. forces launched a major operation in Venezuela—code‑named Operation Absolute Resolve—that resulted in the capture of Maduro and his wife. The U.S. government framed the intervention as a law‑enforcement action tied to longstanding criminal charges against Maduro, including narcoterrorism.
The United States claims that Venezuelan officials were engaged in government‑backed drug trafficking, asserting links with the so‑called Cartel of the Suns, which Washington has designated as a terrorist organization—a claim Maduro vehemently rejects. He argues that U.S. actions were aimed at forcing regime change and securing control over Venezuela’s vast oil riches.
Only hours before his detention, Maduro made his final public appearance as president when he hosted China’s special envoy, Qiu Xiaoqi, at the Miraflores Palace to discuss bilateral relations—an event that highlighted Caracas’s reliance on foreign partnerships for political support. Shortly after that meeting, explosions were reported across Caracas.
The event went beyond a simple arrest; it sent a broader strategic message, particularly to countries like China and Iran, undermining the belief that the U.S. would refrain from acting against governments supported by foreign adversaries.
Drill, Baby, Drill
A major strategic factor behind U.S. actions in Venezuela appears to be securing access to its vast energy resources. Venezuela sits on the largest proven oil reserves on the planet, with estimates from Wood Mackenzie suggesting roughly 241 billion barrels of recoverable crude, making it a uniquely significant player in global oil markets.
Top Countries by Proven Oil Reserves (Billion Barrels)
However, Venezuela’s track record of oil output underscores just how challenging it has been to tap into its vast reserves. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the nation was capable of producing close to 3 million barrels per day—a level that made it one of the world’s top crude exporters. But political turmoil, labor strikes, and the restructuring of the oil sector under Hugo Chávez triggered a prolonged decline. The downturn was steepened further by U.S. sanctions starting in 2017, which restricted investment, technology, and exports, driving production down sharply. After bottoming out around 374,000–500,000 bpd during the worst of the crisis, output has only modestly recovered in recent years and remains in the range of approximately 800,000–900,000 bpd.
Historical Total Venezuelan Supply
Expectations that Venezuelan oil output could quickly rebound may overstate what’s realistically achievable. History shows that even after major disruptions, rebuilding oil production takes many years and vast investment. For example, Iraq needed almost a decade and well over $200 billion in capital to restore its output after the Iraq War, while Libya still has not returned to its pre‑2011 production levels.
Venezuela’s challenges are even more severe. Most of its reserves are extra‑heavy crude that demands upgrading and blending with diluents before it can be transported and refined, a costly and technical process. Years of underinvestment, international sanctions, the erosion of PDVSA’s workforce, and the deterioration of infrastructure have compounded these production hurdles. Pipelines, upgraders, and refineries have been left in poor condition, and limited access to modern technology continues to restrict any rapid recovery.
While PDVSA has claimed that facilities were not physically damaged in recent events—suggesting limited short‑term disruption—oil markets appear capable of absorbing this uncertainty for now. Inventories remain ample, and OPEC+ has signalled that its voluntary cuts of around 1.65 million bpd could be reversed if necessary to balance markets.
In a scenario where a pro‑U.S. government enables sanctions relief and attracts foreign investment, Venezuelan exports could gradually recover. But bringing production back to around 3 million bpd would take many years and substantial infrastructure upgrades. U.S. leadership has indicated that American oil companies would play a role in operating and developing Venezuela’s oil sector, though analysts note that the heavy crude’s technical challenges and investment risks remain significant.
Meanwhile, global oil markets are structurally tightening, with world consumption exceeding 101 million bpd driven by demand growth in the U.S., China, and India. Any short‑term impact on supply may show up as a modest increase in geopolitical risk premiums, but over time, the sidelined Venezuelan barrels—currently producing around 800,000–900,000 bpd—could eventually add supply and influence prices if output scales up gradually.
In addition to oil, Venezuela sits on a wealth of mineral resources. Large deposits of iron ore, bauxite, gold, nickel, copper, zinc and other metallic minerals are concentrated mainly in the southern Guayana Shield region. The country also ranks among Latin America’s largest holders of gold, and geological assessments identify significant iron and bauxite resources alongside reserves of coal, antimony, molybdenum and other base metals.
Despite this geological potential, commercial mining activity remains very limited. Most non‑oil mineral sectors contribute only a tiny fraction of Venezuela’s economic output, and substantial foreign investment has largely been absent, meaning much of the nation’s mineral wealth has yet to be developed into large‑scale production.
The Ongoing Economic Battle Between the United States and China
Competition between modern empires today is no longer about direct confrontation but about control over key inputs. Energy, metals, and critical materials form the foundation of the modern world. When leaders signal a willingness to secure these resources directly, markets should interpret this not as mere rhetoric, but as a concrete resource strategy.
The rivalry between the United States and China is fundamentally structural rather than ideological. The U.S. is rich in energy but dependent on imported metals and rare earths. China dominates metals processing but imports around 70% of its crude oil. Each side is strong where the other is vulnerable, and both seek to turn this imbalance into strategic advantage.
Control over energy flows also carries monetary implications. Influence over Venezuelan oil is not only about supply, but also about reinforcing the petrodollar and preventing the rise of the petroyuan.
There is also a regional dimension to this rivalry. China has steadily increased its presence in Latin America through infrastructure projects and commodity-backed financing. Recent U.S. moves indicate an effort to reassert dominance in the Western Hemisphere, compelling Beijing to compete on less advantageous terms. The Trump administration’s 2025 National Security Strategy elevated the region to a core priority, effectively reviving the logic of the Monroe Doctrine—rebranded as the “Donroe Doctrine.” The aim is to bring strategically important natural resources, especially critical minerals and rare earths, under U.S.-aligned corporate control while building a hemisphere-wide supply chain that reduces dependence on China.
Across much of South America, governments are edging closer to Washington, leaving Brazil increasingly isolated. This is significant given President Lula’s openly left-leaning stance and his consistent alignment with Russia, China, and Iran. Following Trump’s capture of Maduro, betting markets on Kalshi assign a 90% probability that the presidents of Colombia and Peru will be out of office before 2027. At the same time, President Trump has again stated that Greenland should become part of the United States, reinforcing a broader strategy centered on securing critical assets.
Which Assets Could Gain from “Nation Building” in Venezuela?
A political transition in Venezuela would most directly benefit assets tied to sovereign debt restructuring, energy infrastructure, and the oil supply chain.
Venezuelan bonds are currently priced at roughly 25–35 cents on the dollar, reflecting the impact of sanctions and ongoing legal uncertainty. Under a regime-change scenario, several analysts project potential recoveries in the 30–55 cent range, supported by the prospects of debt restructuring and the easing or removal of sanctions.
Ashmore continues to rank among the largest institutional holders of Venezuelan sovereign debt. Advisory firms such as Houlihan Lokey—financial adviser to the Venezuela Creditor Committee—and Lazard, a veteran of major sovereign restructurings (including Greece and Ukraine), would likely stand to gain from the sheer scale and complexity of any debt workout. In such processes, advisers typically earn success-based fees and function as the “picks and shovels” of restructuring. Venezuela’s debt structure is widely regarded as one of the most intricate ever assembled.
Reviving Venezuela’s oil industry would demand swift rehabilitation of aging infrastructure. Technip, which historically designed much of the country’s core oil facilities, is well placed to play a leading role given its proprietary expertise—particularly if emergency repairs are fast-tracked through sole-source or no-bid contracts. Graham Corporation, a supplier of vacuum ejector systems used in heavy-oil upgrading and refining, could also benefit, since Venezuela’s crude requires vacuum distillation to prevent it from solidifying into coke.
Before exports can meaningfully increase, Venezuela will need to import substantial volumes of diluent (such as naphtha or natural gasoline) to transport its heavy crude through pipelines. Targa Resources, operator of the Galena Park Marine Terminal in Houston—a major LPG and naphtha export hub—would be a natural beneficiary if Venezuela pivots back to U.S. diluent supplies, replacing current inflows from Iran.
The clearest corporate beneficiary of regime change and nation-building in Venezuela is Chevron (NYSE: CVX). Unlike other U.S. energy majors that exited the country, Chevron has maintained an on-the-ground presence. It retains the workforce, regulatory approvals (through OFAC), and operational assets—most notably Petroboscan and Petropiar—that position it to scale up production quickly. Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM) and ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP), both of which hold legacy claims and arbitration awards stemming from past expropriations, could also regain market access or pursue compensation under a revised legal and political framework.
Refiners along the U.S. Gulf Coast—such as Valero Energy (NYSE: VLO), Phillips 66 (NYSE: PSX), and Marathon Petroleum (NYSE: MPC)—were purpose-built to handle heavy, sour crude like that produced in Venezuela. Since the imposition of sanctions, these companies have had to rely on costlier substitute feedstocks. A resumption of Venezuelan supply would reduce input costs and support refining margins, assuming end-product demand remains stable.
At the sector level, a significant increase in Venezuelan output would likely weigh on oil prices, which would be negative for crude producers but positive for consumer-oriented equities. Lower energy prices are inherently deflationary and could translate into lower bond yields—conditions that are generally supportive of risk assets, all else equal.
Note: This section is for analytical purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.
Venezuela: What Comes Next for the Economy and Markets?
In a characteristically Trump-like approach, President Trump initially stated that the United States would “administer” Venezuela during the transition period. U.S. officials later confirmed that approximately 15,000 troops would remain stationed in the Caribbean, with the option of further intervention if the interim authorities in Caracas failed to comply with Washington’s demands.
Venezuela’s Supreme Court subsequently named Vice President Delcy Rodríguez as interim president. A close ally of Maduro since 2018, Rodríguez previously oversaw much of the oil-dependent economy and the country’s intelligence structures, placing her firmly within the existing power framework. She signaled a willingness “to cooperate” with the Trump administration, hinting at a potentially dramatic reset in relations between the two long-hostile governments.
International observers, including the United Nations and the Carter Center, have concluded that Venezuela’s 2024 elections lacked legitimacy and fell short of international standards. Independently verified tally sheets reviewed by analysts indicated that opposition candidate Edmundo González secured around 67% of the vote, compared with roughly 30% for Maduro.
At the same time, María Corina Machado—Nobel Peace Prize laureate and a leading figure in Venezuela’s opposition—is expected to return to the country later this month and has said the opposition is ready to take power. President Trump, however, has publicly cast doubt on the breadth of her support among the Venezuelan population.
In this context, three potential scenarios appear likely, as outlined by Gavekal Research:
“Soft” Military Rule
In the near term, the most probable outcome is the continuation of the current power structure under Rodríguez and the armed forces. For this arrangement to endure, it would likely require a pragmatic shift toward U.S. priorities—embracing a more business-friendly approach and loosening ties with traditional partners such as Russia, China, and Iran. Washington may be willing to accept this scenario if it ensures political stability and reliable access to energy supplies.
Democratic Transition
A negotiated move toward civilian governance would hinge largely on how new elections are structured. Allowing participation from the Venezuelan diaspora could significantly reshape the results, whereas restricting voting to residents inside the country would be more likely to benefit factions linked to the existing regime.
“Libya Redux” (State Breakdown)
The most destabilizing scenario would involve the collapse of central authority, triggering internal military conflict and the proliferation of armed groups. Such an outcome would heighten the risk of civil strife, renewed migration pressures, and severe disruptions to oil production and global energy markets.
Oil prices tumbled in Asian trading on Wednesday after U.S. President Donald Trump said Venezuela would deliver tens of millions of barrels of crude to the United States, a development expected to significantly increase global supply. Prices were already under pressure earlier in the week, as Washington’s takeover of Venezuela fueled expectations of a broad easing of sanctions on the country’s oil sector—potentially releasing tens of millions of barrels back onto the market.
Despite elevated geopolitical risks adding a modest risk premium, oil prices stayed under pressure as markets grew increasingly concerned about a potential supply glut in 2026. Crude was already on track for its steepest annual decline in five years in 2025. Brent futures for March slid 1% to $60.11 a barrel at 20:13 ET (01:13 GMT), while U.S. benchmark WTI dropped 1.1% to $56.29 a barrel.
Venezuela to send 30–50 million barrels of crude to the United States, Trump says
In a post on social media, Trump said Venezuela would transfer between 30 and 50 million barrels of oil to the United States, with Washington planning to sell the crude at prevailing market prices. He added that the proceeds from the sales would be managed by him as U.S. president, stating that the funds would be used to serve the interests of both Venezuela and the United States.
The announcement follows just days after U.S. forces detained Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, when Trump said Washington was taking control of the country and planned to open up its oil sector. Oil prices initially fell after Maduro’s capture, as markets anticipated that a potential easing of U.S. sanctions on Venezuela could unleash large volumes of crude onto global markets. Trump’s actions since then suggest that this outcome is increasingly likely.
However, analysts cautioned that any reopening of Venezuela’s energy industry could take longer than expected, citing risks of political instability and the constraints of the nation’s aging infrastructure. Data from maritime analytics firm Kpler also indicated that a near-term increase in Venezuelan output is unlikely due to limited domestic storage capacity.
Russia-Ukraine ceasefire draws attention as U.S. backs security guarantees for Kyiv
Oil markets were also tracking any fresh developments in talks on a Russia–Ukraine ceasefire after the United States on Tuesday endorsed a largely European-led coalition that pledged to provide security guarantees for Kyiv.
The U.S. commitment was made at a Paris summit aimed at reassuring Ukraine in the event of a truce with Moscow. Washington also said it was prepared to help monitor and verify any ceasefire should an agreement be reached. However, Russia has so far shown limited willingness to engage in a ceasefire, with fighting between the two sides continuing as the war moves toward its fifth consecutive year.
Even so, any prospective ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine could ultimately lead to a rollback of U.S. sanctions on Moscow, allowing additional Russian oil to return to the market. Such a development would also reduce the geopolitical risk premium embedded in crude prices.
The removal of Venezuela’s current leadership would likely signal a sharp shift in Washington’s stated objectives—from a focus on counter-narcotics pressure to a far more ambitious agenda: unlocking one of the world’s largest oil reserves and reopening the country to U.S. energy companies.
“The oil business in Venezuela has been a bust—a total bust—for a long period of time,” U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters on Saturday.
“We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies—the biggest anywhere in the world—go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country.”
The central question for Trump’s administration is whether political change alone would be sufficient to revive an industry hollowed out by decades of mismanagement, corruption, and chronic underinvestment.
On paper, Venezuela’s oil potential is vast. Government figures put proven reserves at more than 300 billion barrels, the largest in the world, consisting largely of heavy crude prized by refiners along the U.S. Gulf Coast and in parts of Asia.
Analysts note that this heavy crude complements U.S. shale production, which is typically lighter and less suited to certain refinery configurations. In theory, Venezuela’s reserves could once again play a meaningful role in global energy markets.
In practice, however, the obstacles are formidable. Venezuela currently produces less than one million barrels per day—a fraction of its output two decades ago. Infrastructure has deteriorated severely, skilled workers have fled the country, and oil fields, pipelines, ports, and refineries would require massive capital investment merely to restore reliable operations.
Even under optimistic scenarios, years of rebuilding would be required before production could rise meaningfully. Market conditions add another layer of complexity: global oil supplies remain ample, and prices below $60 a barrel reduce the incentive for large-scale, high-risk investment abroad.
U.S. producers must therefore weigh whether capital is better deployed in stable domestic basins rather than in a country with a long history of expropriation and contract disputes.
Legal and institutional reform would also be indispensable. Venezuela would need to overhaul laws governing private investment, restructure roughly $160 billion in sovereign and quasi-sovereign debt, and resolve outstanding arbitration claims stemming from past nationalizations.
Without clear property rights and predictable regulatory frameworks, international oil companies are unlikely to commit billions of dollars, regardless of political change.
Security and governance challenges remain unresolved as well. Removing a leader does not automatically produce stability, and companies will wait to see whether a transitional government can maintain order, protect assets, and establish credible authority across the country.
The scale of reconstruction required extends far beyond oil extraction, encompassing financing, currency stabilization, and the rebuilding of core state institutions.
In that sense, unlocking Venezuela’s oil is ultimately less a question of geology than of politics, economics, and time.
OPEC+ delegates indicated that the group is expected to keep oil production steady at their upcoming meeting on Sunday, despite ongoing political tensions between key members Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as well as the recent U.S. capture of Venezuela’s president.
The Sunday meeting involves eight OPEC+ members—Saudi Arabia, Russia, the UAE, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Iraq, Algeria, and Oman—who together produce about half of the world’s oil supply. This session follows a challenging 2025, during which oil prices plunged over 18%, marking their steepest annual decline since 2020 amid concerns over oversupply.
From April to December 2025, these eight members raised oil output targets by roughly 2.9 million barrels per day, representing nearly 3% of global oil demand. They agreed in November to pause further output increases for January through March 2026.
According to three OPEC+ sources, Sunday’s meeting is unlikely to alter this policy.
OPEC Faces Multiple Crises Amid Market and Political Challenges
Tensions between Saudi Arabia and the UAE escalated last month over a decade-long conflict in Yemen, when a UAE-aligned group seized territory from the Saudi-backed government. This crisis sparked the biggest rift in decades between the former close allies, exposing years of divergence on key issues.
Historically, OPEC has managed to navigate serious internal disputes—such as during the Iran–Iraq War—by prioritizing market stability over political conflicts. However, the group now faces multiple challenges. Russian oil exports remain under pressure from U.S. sanctions related to the Ukraine war, while Iran grapples with widespread protests and threats of U.S. intervention.
These overlapping crises put OPEC’s cohesion and its ability to manage the global oil market to a critical test.
On Saturday, the United States reportedly captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. U.S. President Donald Trump announced that Washington would assume control of the country until a transition to a new administration can be arranged, though he did not specify how this process would be carried out.
Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, surpassing even those of OPEC’s leader, Saudi Arabia. However, its oil production has sharply declined over the years due to chronic mismanagement and international sanctions.
Analysts caution that a significant increase in crude output is unlikely in the near future, even if U.S. oil majors follow through on the multibillion-dollar investments promised by President Trump.
THE ETERNAL SOVEREIGN 