US strike on Iran may trigger oil shock across Southeast Asia, warns analyst
KUALA LUMPUR: Oil prices in Southeast Asian countries, including Malaysia, could be significantly affected due to US military strikes on Iran.
Senior fellow at the Nusantara Academy for Strategic Research Dr Azmi Hassan said that oil prices were already rising prior to the strikes earlier today
"If Iran is now backed into a corner and desperate, they may decide to close the Strait of Hormuz," he warned, highlighting that the passage remains critical for oil exports from the Middle East to Asia.
"China would be impacted, as nearly 80 per cent to 90 per cent of its oil from Iran would be severely affected.
"Not only China, but other Southeast Asian countries would also be affected," Azmi added.
Meanwhile, Azmi also criticised US's decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities, citing the risk of radiation leakage.
He contrasted the muted response of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over the Iran strikes with its earlier condemnation of Russia's attack on Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear facility.
"To attack a member of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) makes it very difficult for the IAEA chief to justify their position," he added.
Azmi concluded that the US strike is unlikely to cool tensions and will affect regional and global stability.
The United States announced its entry into the Iran-Israel war earlier today, stating that it has carried out attacks on three Iranian nuclear sites, including the underground uranium enrichment facility at Fordow.
Entering its second week, Israel began the conflict through 'preemptive' airstrikes on several strategic sites in Iran, including nuclear facilities, missile bases and military command centres, followed with retaliation by the Gulf state.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
29 minutes ago
- The Star
Hague NATO summit protest shifts focus to Iran
Demonstrators hold 'ROOD Socialistische Jongeren' (RED socialist youth) flags during a march against the upcoming NATO leaders' summit, at The Hague, Netherlands, June 22, 2025. REUTERS/Piroschka van de Wouw THE HAGUE (Reuters) -An anti-NATO protest in The Hague on Sunday shifted its focus to Iran after overnight U.S. strikes hit key nuclear sites there. The peaceful demonstration took place days before The Hague hosts a NATO summit. The planned protest against NATO's military policies pivoted to condemnation of the U.S. attacks on Iran, with participants voicing concern about rising tensions in the Middle East. Thousands marched toward the Peace Palace, home to the International Court of Justice, a Reuters witness said. Organizers estimated the crowd at 5,000, while police said they do not track attendance numbers. Protesters carried banners calling for de-escalation, diplomacy, and for NATO to be disbanded, with some saying "No Iran War" and "Hands off Iran". Iranian protester Nikita Shahbazi told Reuters it was "heartbreaking" to see what is going on in her home country. "I feel devastated. (The U.S. attacks) can trigger a wider war. It has opened the paths for illegal attacks on nuclear installations everywhere in the world." Protesters also opposed a proposed 5% defence spending target pushed by U.S. President Donald Trump and backed by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who hopes to secure consensus at the summit, beginning on Wednesday. "There's no need for this provocation, this 5% of GDP spending on weapons, that will benefit the military-industrial complex. This has nothing to do with the needs of people," said British protester Pippa Bartolotti. (Reporting by Yiming Woo, Writing by Charlotte Van Campenhout, Editing by Giles Elgood)
New Straits Times
34 minutes ago
- New Straits Times
Asean not morally ambiguous
AS the war in Gaza grinds on, some have begun to question Asean's moral posture, suggesting it is caught between ethical clarity and geopolitical caution. A recent Nikkei Asia editorial, for instance, claimed Asean suffers from a strategic and moral dilemma in responding to the Israel-Palestine conflict. However, far from being paralysed, Asean has consistently supported a peaceful resolution based on international law. Since the 1970s, Asean has endorsed the two-state solution as the only viable path towards lasting peace. This includes support for United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the 1993 Oslo Accords, and the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative — also known as the Makkah Accord. These are firm commitments to legality, diplomacy and human rights. The claim that Asean has been muted or morally ambiguous dismisses the role played by key member states — especially Malaysia and Indonesia. Both have consistently condemned Israeli aggression and voiced support for Palestinian self-determination. Singapore, while maintaining diplomatic relations with Israel, has also supported peaceful coexistence and a two-state solution grounded in rule of law. Asean has chosen collective consensus and sustained diplomacy over reactionary statements or token gestures. If paralysis exists, it is not within Asean, but within Israel's long-standing policy of rejectionism. Since the assassination of prime minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, successive Israeli governments have walked away from every serious peace initiative. The expansion of illegal settlements, the military blockade of Gaza and discriminatory policies against Arab citizens have created a system many have likened to apartheid. The tragic events of Oct 7, 2023, have been cited by Israel to justify its indiscriminate bombardment of Gaza's hospitals, schools and refugee camps. Entire neighbourhoods have been flattened. Food, water and fuel have been denied to over two million civilians, more than half of whom are children. This is not self-defence — it is collective punishment, forbidden under international humanitarian law. Asean, by contrast, has called for an immediate ceasefire, unimpeded humanitarian access and a return to negotiations. What Asean cannot do — because of geography and geopolitical limits — is intervene in a war sustained by decades of US vetoes at the UN Security Council and continuous arms support for Israel from Washington, London and Berlin. Notably, even within Europe there is growing unease. Belgium, Spain, Norway and Ireland have moved towards recognising Palestine as a sovereign state. They have criticised Israel's starvation tactics and disproportionate use of force. This shift is not an abandonment of Western alliances — it is a recognition that peace cannot be achieved through occupation and siege. Asean's position has also found resonance across the Global South. At the Asean-GCC Summit in October 2023, both blocs jointly reaffirmed their support for the two-state solution and peaceful coexistence. Asean's alignment with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the UN and the Arab League signals a unified call for justice — not through military intervention, but through diplomatic resolve. Asean does not practise megaphone diplomacy. Its strength lies in principled patience and coordinated regional consensus. Unlike Western powers, which condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine but defend Israeli strikes on Gaza, Asean does not apply moral standards selectively. What many forget is that this is not a war between two equal sides. It is the latest chapter in a prolonged occupation that began in 1967. To fault Asean for not taking sides in such a structurally unequal conflict is to conflate strategic restraint with moral apathy. Indeed, Asean's restraint is its greatest diplomatic asset. By refusing to inflame tensions or escalate rhetoric, Asean positions itself as a principled bloc that adheres to international norms. Malaysia and Indonesia, as prominent members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, have also spoken not just for Muslims, but for all who uphold dignity, justice and legality. The tragedy of Gaza is the failure of Israel to embrace coexistence, to respect international law and to heed decades of global appeals for peace. Asean has made its position clear: the only path forward is an end to occupation and the realisation of Palestinian statehood. Until that happens, it is not Asean's credibility that should be questioned — it is Israel's.
New Straits Times
34 minutes ago
- New Straits Times
Iran's top security body to decide on Hormuz closure, Press TV reports
DUBAI: Iran's Supreme National Security Council must make the final decision on whether to close the Strait of Hormuz following US bombing raids, Iran's Press TV said on Sunday, after parliament was reported to have backed the measure. Iran has long used the threat of closing the Strait, through which around 20 per cent of global oil and gas demand flows, as a way to ward off Western pressure which is now at its peak after the overnight US strikes on its nuclear facilities. The decision to close the strait is not yet final and it was not officially reported that parliament had in fact adopted a bill to that effect. Instead, a member of parliament's national security commission Esmail Kosari was quoted on other Iranian media as saying: "For now, [parliament has] come to the conclusion we should close the Strait of Hormuz, but the final decision in this regard is the responsibility of the Supreme National Security Council." Kosari, who is also a Revolutionary Guards Commander, had earlier on Sunday told the Young Journalist Club that closing the strait was on the agenda and "will be done whenever necessary." Asked about whether Tehran would close the waterway, Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi dodged the question on Sunday and replied: "A variety of options are available to Iran." The strait lies between Oman and Iran and links the Mideast Gulf north of it with the Gulf of Oman to the south and the Arabian Sea beyond. It is 21 miles (33 km) wide at its narrowest point, with the shipping lane just 2 miles (3 km) wide in either direction. — REUTERS
