Middle East tensions put investors on alert, weighing worst-case scenarios
Investors are mulling a host of different market scenarios should the US deepen its involvement in the Middle East conflict. PHOTO: BLOOMBERG
NEW YORK - Investors are mulling a host of different market scenarios should the US deepen its involvement in the Middle East conflict, with the potential for ripple effects if energy prices skyrocket.
They are honed in on the evolving situation between Israel and Iran, which have exchanged missile strikes, and are poised for action if the US decides to join Israel in its bombing campaign.
That would likely cause an initial selloff in equities and possible safe-haven bid for the dollar on concerns US military action against Iran would send inflation higher, dampening consumer confidence and lessening the chance of near-term interest rate cuts.
The move by the US to deploy B-2 bombers to Guam on June 21 has caught the attention of market participants. While the bombers could be used to deliver the 30,000-pound bombs able to destroy Iran's underground nuclear programme facilities, it is unclear whether the move is tied to Middle East events.
The move 'just underscores the administration's willingness to threaten to intervene,' said Mr Mark Spindel, chief investment officer of Potomac River Capital LLC.
'I think this will help oil prices stay higher; the easy direction for them right now is up at this point,' Mr Spindel added.
While US West Texas Intermediate crude prices (WTI) have climbed some 10 per cent over the past week, the S&P 500 has been little changed, following an initial drop when Israel launched its attacks.
However, if attacks were to take out Iranian oil supply, 'that's when the market is going to sit up and take notice', said Mr Art Hogan, chief market strategist at B Riley Wealth.
'If you get disruption to supply of oil product on the global marketplace, that is not reflected in today's WTI price and that is where things get negative,' Mr Hogan said.
The White House said on June19 that President Donald Trump would decide on US involvement in the conflict in the next two weeks. Israeli officials, however, have told the Trump administration they do not want to wait the two weeks and that Israel could act alone before the deadline is up, two sources said.
Analysts at Oxford Economics modelled three scenarios, including a de-escalation in the conflict, a complete shutdown in Iranian production, and a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, 'each with increasingly large impacts on global oil prices', the firm said in a note.
In the most severe case, global oil prices jump to around US$130 (S$167) per barrel, driving US inflation near 6 per cent by the end of 2025, Oxford said in the note.
'Although the price shock inevitably dampens consumer spending because of the hit to real incomes, the scale of the rise in inflation and concerns about the potential for second-round inflation effects likely ruin any chance of rate cuts in the US this year,' Oxford said in the note.
Oil impact
The biggest market impact from the escalating conflict has been restricted to oil, with oil prices soaring on worries that the Iran-Israel conflict could disrupt supplies. Global benchmark Brent crude futures have risen as much as 18 per cent since June 10, hitting a near five-month high of US$79.04 on June 19.
The accompanying rise in investors' expectations for further near-term volatility in oil prices has outpaced the rise in volatility expectations for other major asset classes, including stocks and bonds.
But other asset classes, including stocks, could still feel the knock-on effects of higher oil prices, especially if there is a larger surge in oil prices if the worst market fears of supply disruptions come true, analysts said.
'Geopolitical tensions have been mostly ignored by equities, but they are being factored into oil,' Citigroup analysts wrote in a note.
'To us, the key for equities from here will come from energy commodity pricing,' they said.
Stocks unperturbed
US stocks have so far weathered rising Middle East conflict with little sign of panic. A more direct U.S. involvement in the conflict could, however, spook markets, investors said. As the days pass, Potomac River Capital's Spindel said, markets have become increasingly focused on the Middle East.
'The stock market can only digest one thing at a time, and right now we're all focused on if, whether and when the US enters this conflict.'
Economists warn that a dramatic rise in oil prices could damage a global economy already strained by Mr Trump's tariffs.
Still, any pullback in equities might be fleeting, history suggests. During past prominent instances of Middle East tensions coming to a boil, including the 2003 Iraq invasion and the 2019 attacks on Saudi oil facilities, stocks initially languished but soon recovered to trade higher in the months ahead.
On average, the S&P 500 slipped 0.3 per cent in the three weeks following the start of conflict, but was 2.3 per cent higher on average two months following the conflict, according to data from Wedbush Securities and CapIQ Pro.
Dollar woes
An escalation in the conflict could have mixed implications for the US dollar, which has tumbled this year amid worries over diminished US exceptionalism.
In the event of US direct engagement in the Iran-Israel war, the dollar could initially benefit from a safety bid, analysts said.
'Traders are likely to worry more about the implicit erosion of the terms of trade for Europe, the UK, and Japan, rather than the economic shock to the US, a major oil producer,' Mr Thierry Wizman, Global FX & Rates Strategist at Macquarie Group, said in a note.
But longer-term, the prospect of U.S.-directed 'nation-building' would probably weaken the dollar, he said. 'We recall that after the attacks of 9/11, and running through the decade-long US presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, the USD weakened,' Mr Wizman said. REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
38 minutes ago
- Business Times
Trump makes dramatic about-face with plunge into Middle East war
US President Donald Trump has long advocated for keeping the US out of Middle Eastern wars. By joining Israel's offensive against Iran, he is making a dramatic geopolitical u-turn. After days of deliberation and mixed messages, Trump launched a strike against three Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday (Jun 21), bolstering Israel's efforts to destroy Iran's nuclear programme and drawing the US into a heated regional conflict. The bombings, which struck sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, came just days after he suggested he would wait for as much as two weeks to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran. Speaking from the White House late on Saturday, Trump argued that Iran must be prevented from having an atomic bomb and said the US fulfilled its objective of destroying their nuclear sites. Trump also pressured Iran to return to the negotiating table, threatening more attacks if they don't work toward an agreement – or retaliate against the US. 'This cannot continue. There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days,' the president said in an address to the nation. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Consequential choice While Trump has approved military action in the past, this moment marks a consequential choice for a leader who rose to power with an anti-war stance and was welcomed by voters weary of US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. He hardened that posture in his 2024 campaign with attacks on then-President Joe Biden's chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. He also has eschewed military action at times – calling off a strike on Iran in 2019 that was designed as retaliation for shooting down a US drone, saying he did not see it as proportionate. In his second inaugural address in January, Trump pledged to measure success 'not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end – and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.' And since taking office five months ago, Trump's focus on the Middle East has largely been on deals that bring US investment rather than military expansion. During a glitzy trip through the region in May, he proclaimed he wants its future to be 'defined by commerce, not chaos'. The strikes injected further anxiety into the global economy following the scattershot rollout of Trump's global tariffs. Around a fifth of the world's daily oil supply goes through the Strait of Hormuz, which lies between Iran and its Gulf Arab neighbours. Global crude oil traders have been on edge. In an extreme scenario in which the Strait of Hormuz were shut, oil could surge beyond US$130 a barrel, weighing on global growth and driving consumer prices higher, according to a Bloomberg Economics analysis. In the days leading up to the strike, Trump and his advisers had suggested that any action would be limited. Republicans emphasised that idea on Saturday – before the president threatened further attacks. 'This is not the start of a forever war,' Senator Jim Risch, the Idaho Republican and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a post on X. 'There will not be American boots on the ground in Iran. This was a precise, limited strike, which was necessary and by all accounts was very successful.' For Trump and many of his supporters, the hope is that this military action will echo the assassination of a top Iranian general in 2020. After the US strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, Trump stressed that he did not want a wider war. An Iranian response resulted in no casualties, and the situation did not escalate. Signs that Trump was becoming more open to the possibility of military action emerged last week when he abruptly departed the Group of Seven leaders summit in Canada to deal with the Middle East conflict. After months of trying to talk Tehran into making a nuclear deal, negotiations with special envoy Steve Witkoff had made little progress and Israel launched its initial attack. Trump held open the possibility of reopening discussions with his two-week ultimatum. But by Friday, Trump dismissed talks between three European nations and Iran that failed to deliver a breakthrough. And he said his patience with Tehran had just about run out. The question going forward is what the Iranian response will be and whether the US could be drawn into a longer conflict. Members of Congress have indicated they could challenge Trump's authority to unilaterally wage war on Iran without their approval. Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat who co-sponsored legislation that would force a vote on any US war with Iran, raised that prospect on Saturday, saying lawmakers should vote on the bill 'to prevent America from being dragged into another endless Middle East war'. A handful of Republicans also questioned the constitutionality of the move. 'This is not Constitutional,' said Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who co-sponsored the war powers measure. The US Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war but the War Powers Resolution allows the president to insert US forces into a conflict without a vote, as long as lawmakers are notified within 48 hours and the engagement must end within 60 days unless lawmakers allow otherwise. The potential for US engagement opened up a rift recently among Trump's supporters inside and outside the White House. Foreign policy hawks embraced an attack as an opportunity to show strength and deny Iran a nuclear weapon, while isolationists argued US should stay out of the fight and focus on issues like immigration. 'This was the right call. The regime deserves it,' said Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and longtime proponent of attacking Iran. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia, has been on the other side, saying in a post on X: 'This is not our fight. Peace is the answer.' Trump was drawn into the fray, clashing with conservative media personality Tucker Carlson, who has called on the US to stay out of the conflict. On Jun 18, he downplayed any issues, saying 'my supporters are for me' and adding that Carlson 'called and apologised the other day because he thought he said things that were a little bit too strong'. Longtime time Trump ally Steve Bannon said on his podcast on Saturday that Trump will need to explain himself, but that he thinks his base will ultimately remain loyal. 'There are a lot of MAGA (Make America Great Again) that's not happy about this,' he said. 'I believe he will get MAGA on board, all of it, but he's got to explain exactly and go through this.' BLOOMBERG
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Iran says US attacks on three nuclear sites were ‘savage'
The agency did not confirm whether the sites of Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan had been 'completely and totally obliterated'. PHOTO: AFP Iran says US attacks on three nuclear sites were 'savage' Follow our live coverage here. TEHRAN – Iran's atomic energy agency described US strikes on three key nuclear facilities as a 'savage assault' but pledged not to abandon its nuclear industry after the assault. The 'lawless actions' will not cause 'the development of this national industry to be halted', the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran said in a statement, according to the state-run IRNA news agency. The agency did not confirm whether the sites of Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan had been 'completely and totally obliterated', as US President Donald Trump said they were in an address from Washington. Iran's nuclear safety authority said it detected no signs of radioactive contamination at the three nuclear sites following the strikes, IRNA said in a separate report. The authority also assessed that there was no threat to residents living near the facilities. Iranian lawmaker Mannan Raisi, who represents Qom – the closest population centre to Fordow – said the facility did not suffer 'serious damage', with most of the impact limited to above-ground structures, the semi-official Tasnim News Agency reported. He added that any material at Fordow that could pose a potential risk to the public 'had already been removed in advance'. BLOOMBERG Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
With military strike his predecessors avoided, Trump takes a huge gamble
Most importantly, US President Donald Trump is betting that he has destroyed Iran's chances of ever reconstituting its nuclear programme. PHOTO: REUTERS Follow our live coverage here. WASHINGTON – Over the past two decades, the United States has used sanctions, sabotage, cyberattacks and diplomatic negotiations to try to slow Iran's long march to a nuclear weapon. At roughly 2.30am on June 22 in Iran, President Donald Trump unleashed a show of raw military might that each of his last four predecessors had deliberately avoided, for fear of plunging the United States into war in the Middle East. After days of declaring that he could not take the risk that the mullahs and generals of Tehran who had survived Israel's strikes would make a final leap to a nuclear weapon, he ordered a fleet of B-2 bombers halfway around the world to drop the most powerful conventional bombs on the most critical sites in Iran's vast nuclear complexes. The prime target was the deeply buried enrichment centre at Fordow, which Israel was incapable of reaching. For Mr Trump, the decision to attack the nuclear infrastructure of a hostile nation represents the biggest – and potentially most dangerous – gamble of his second term. He is betting that the United States can repel whatever retaliation Iran's leadership orders against more than 40,000 US troops spread over bases throughout the region. All are within range of Tehran's missile fleet, even after eight days of relentless attacks by Israel. And he is betting that he can deter a vastly debilitated Iran from using its familiar techniques – terrorism, hostage-taking and cyberattacks – as a more indirect line of attack to wreak revenge. Most importantly, he is betting that he has destroyed Iran's chances of ever reconstituting its nuclear programme. That is an ambitious goal: Iran has made clear that, if attacked, it would exit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and take its vast programme underground. That is why Mr Trump focused so much attention on destroying Fordow, the facility Iran built in secret in the mid-2000s that was publicly exposed by President Barack Obama in 2009. That is where Iran was producing almost all of the near-bomb-grade fuel that most alarmed the United States and its allies. Mr Trump's aides were telling those allies on June 21 night that Washington's sole mission was to destroy the nuclear programme. They described the complex strike as a limited, contained operation akin to the special operation that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011. 'They explicitly said this was not a declaration of war,' one senior European diplomat said late on June 21, describing his conversation with a high-ranking administration official. The prime target was the deeply buried enrichment centre at Fordow, which Israel was incapable of reaching. PHOTO: AFP But, the diplomat added, Osama had killed 3,000 Americans. Iran had yet to build a bomb. In short, the administration is arguing that it was engaged in an act of preemption, seeking to terminate a threat, not the Iranian regime. But it is far from clear that the Iranians will perceive it that way. In a brief address from the White House on June 21 night, flanked by Vice-President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, Mr Trump threatened Iran with more destruction if it does not bend to his demands. 'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,' he said. 'If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.' 'There will be either peace,' he added, 'or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember, there are many targets left.' He promised that if Iran did not relent, he would go after them 'with precision, speed and skill.' In essence, Mr Trump was threatening to broaden his military partnership with Israel, which has spent the last eight days systematically targeting Iran's top military and nuclear leadership, killing them in their beds, their laboratories and their bunkers. The United States initially separated itself from that operation. In the Trump administration's first public statement about those strikes, Mr Rubio emphasised that Israel took 'unilateral action against Iran', adding that the United States was 'not involved'. But then, a few days ago, Mr Trump mused on his social media platform about the ability of the United States to kill Iran's 86-year-old supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, anytime he wanted. And on June 21 night, he made clear that the United States was all in, and that contrary to Mr Rubio's statement, the country was now deeply involved. Now, having set back Iran's enrichment capability, Mr Trump is clearly hoping that he can seize on a remarkable moment of weakness – the weakness that allowed the American B-2 bombers to fly in and out of Iranian territory with little resistance. After Israel's fierce retaliation for the Oct 7, 2023, terror attacks that killed over 1,000 Israeli civilians, Iran is suddenly bereft of its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah. Its closest ally, Syria's Bashar Assad, had to flee the country. And Russia and China, which formed a partnership of convenience with Iran, were nowhere to be seen after Israel attacked the country. That left only the nuclear programme as Iran's ultimate defence. It was always more than just a scientific project – it was the symbol of Iranian resistance to the West, and the core of the leadership's plan to hold on to power. Along with the repression of dissent, the programme had become the ultimate means of defence for the inheritors of the Iranian revolution that began in 1979. If the taking of 52 American hostages was Iran's way of standing up to a far larger, far more powerful adversary in 1979, the nuclear program has been the symbol of resistance for the last two decades. One day historians may well draw a line from those images of blindfolded Americans, who were held for 444 days, to the dropping of GBU-57 bunker-busting bombs on the mountainous redoubt called Fordow. They will likely ask whether the United States, its allies or the Iranians themselves could have played this differently. And they will almost certainly ask whether Mr Trump's gamble paid off. NYTIMES Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
