Israel's TA-125 at new peak even as tensions flare with US strikes on Iran

Rising tensions in West Asia have not deterred the Israeli stock market, with the benchmark index surging to record highs despite fresh concerns following US strikes on Iran.
Israel's TA-125 rose 2.2 per cent on Sunday to a fresh high of 2,931.9, just after the US struck three nuclear sites in Iran. Since the beginning of the latest attacks on June 13, the index has risen nearly 7.5 per cent, while the MSCI Asia ex Japan has fallen by 0.63 per cent.
In the year so far, the TA-125 index has risen 18.9 per cent, while the MSCI Asia ex Japan and MSCI World indices are up 11.2 per cent and 4.83 per cent, respectively.
Over the weekend, the US struck three nuclear sites in Iran with bunker-busting bombs, ending speculation of its involvement in the ongoing conflict in the region. US President Donald Trump declared the three facilities 'totally obliterated,' and warned of greater attacks unless Iran makes peace with Israel.
Following the strikes, Iran vowed to retaliate, warning the US of "dire consequences" and has reportedly approved the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Asked about the Strait, Iran's Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Aragchi said that 'a variety of options" are available to Iran, adding that the country would defend itself by all means necessary.
Why is Israeli stock market surging?
The market is rising as investors and global markets bet on a contained conflict and limited escalation following the US strikes on Iran, according to analysts.
There was initial concern that oil prices would spike and Asian markets would open sharply lower. However, that didn't happen, according to G Chokkalingam, founder and chief investment officer at Equinomics Research. He believes this indicates that both the equity and oil markets expect the situation to de-escalate, possibly leading to negotiations rather than a broader conflict.
Regarding the Israeli market, its total market capitalisation is only around $429 billion, with equities accounting for $216 billion, Chokkalingam said. "This means even small domestic or foreign inflows can significantly impact the index."
Additionally, confidence may stem from the US backing of Israel, which reassures investors that the economic impact will be limited, Chokkalingam said. "Unlike during the Ukraine war, when oil jumped nearly 30 per cent, the Israel-Iran conflict has caused only an 11 per cent rise in oil prices, reinforcing the belief that the war may remain localised and short-lived."
Further, it is a preconceived notion that geopolitical tensions may lead to stock market corrections, analysts had noted earlier. "In fact, heightened geopolitical tensions can lead to more fiscal and monetary easing, and the market loves loose policies," according to Jitendra Gohil, chief investment strategist at Kotak Alternate Asset Managers.
Back home, stock markets fell over 1 per cent in early trade, tracking cues from their Asian peers. As of 12:40 PM, the BSE Sensex index was at 81,828.57, lower by 575.47 points or 0.70 per cent, while the Nifty50 was at 24,942.95, down 169.45 points or 0.67 per cent.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Indian Express

26 minutes ago

• Indian Express

America bombs Iran: What does the US Constitution say about war

In 1973, a war-weary US Congress passed the War Powers Act to rein in presidents who overstepped in Vietnam. Five decades later, President Donald Trump's unilateral strike on Iran has reignited a debate the Founders thought they had settled in 1787. On June 22, when Trump announced a series of coordinated airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities — hitting targets in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — he did so without notifying Congress, let alone securing its approval. The sites were hit with precision-guided missiles and 30,000-pound bunker-busters. While Tehran stopped short of a formal declaration of war, officials warned that retaliation was inevitable. At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, Iran's ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, accused the United States of having 'destroyed diplomacy,' warning that the Iranian military would determine the 'timing, nature, and scale' of its retaliation, the Associated Press reported. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi immediately flew to Moscow for consultations with Russia, a sign of how fast this confrontation could escalate beyond bilateral hostilities. Back in Washington, President Trump's aides termed the strike as a limited action. Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared on Fox News to clarify the administration's position: 'This is not a war against Iran,' he said. 'It's a targeted operation to prevent nuclear escalation.' Yet just hours later, President Trump posted a message online: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' The message prompted widespread speculation. Was the administration pursuing regime change in Iran? And if so, was the United States already engaged in war? Global markets reacted nervously. Oil prices surged, and analysts warned of long-term consequences for nuclear non-proliferation and regional stability. More profoundly, Trump's decision reignited a centuries-old question: who gets to declare war? The US Constitution is unequivocal: under Article I, Section 8, only Congress — not the President — holds the authority to declare war. This separation was no accident. It was a deliberate check on executive power, forged in reaction to the British monarchy, where kings could drag nations into conflict at will. The Founders sought to ensure that decisions as grave as war would require the consent of the people's representatives. The Constitution also designates the president as Commander in Chief under Article II, granting authority to direct military operations once war is authorised. The executive also retains the capacity to respond swiftly to sudden attacks. The most notable test came in 1861, when President Abraham Lincoln ordered a blockade of Southern ports at the outset of the Civil War, months before Congress officially declared war on the Confederacy. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld Lincoln's actions, ruling that the President has the authority to 'repel sudden attacks.' For much of US history, this balance endured. From the War of 1812 through World War II, major military engagements were accompanied by formal declarations of war from Congress. Formal declarations of war have remained rare. The United States has declared war only 11 times. (Source: But in the post-1945 world, that constitutional clarity began to blur. The first major rupture came in 1950, when President Harry Truman committed US troops to Korea without seeking congressional approval, framing the war as a 'police action' under the United Nations banner. Subsequent presidents followed suit. John F Kennedy escalated America's presence in Vietnam by sending military advisors and weapons, sidestepping a formal declaration. By 1969, President Richard Nixon was conducting a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, entirely without the knowledge or consent of Congress. This executive overreach eventually sparked legislative backlash. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, designed to reassert its authority, overriding Nixon's veto in the process. The act required presidents to consult with Congress before engaging in hostilities and to withdraw forces within 60 days unless Congress explicitly authorised further action. In theory, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was crafted to restrain precisely the kind of unilateral action President Trump has now taken. Passed in the aftermath of Vietnam, the law requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US forces into hostilities and to withdraw them within 60 days unless Congress grants explicit authorisation. In practice, it has proven all but toothless. Every president since its passage has sidestepped or outright ignored its provisions. Trump did not inform Congress before ordering strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, nor, critics argue, has he offered a convincing legal justification under the US or international law. 'The short answer is that this is, in my view, illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law,' Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who has worked at the Defense Department, told the New York Times. The law, like many of its post-Watergate era peers, was built on trust and precedent. It had no true enforcement mechanism. And so, it has repeatedly failed to restrain the very power it was meant to check. Trump's decision fits a well-established pattern of executive overreach in foreign military engagements. President Ronald Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada and airstrikes on Libya without congressional approval. President George HW Bush invaded Panama in 1989, triggering legal debate over constitutional boundaries. President Bill Clinton bombed Serbia in 1999 as part of the Kosovo conflict, again without seeking congressional consent. President Barack Obama launched a prolonged air campaign in Libya in 2011 and later against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, citing outdated authorisations rather than requesting new ones. Even President Joe Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, authorised airstrikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen in 2024 without congressional sanction. Each administration justified its actions as necessary and time-sensitive. But cumulatively, these precedents have normalised unilateral war-making, eroding Congress's role and the public's voice in questions of war and peace. Technological change has accelerated this shift. Drones, cyber tools, and remote strike capabilities have made it easier to conduct military operations with minimal personnel and lower political risk. A key enabler of this executive drift has been the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in 2001, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The resolution granted the president authority to use 'all necessary and appropriate force' against those responsible for the attacks and those who harboured them. Originally intended to target al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the 2001 AUMF has since been used to justify military actions in at least seven countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan. It has also been invoked against newer groups like ISIS, despite no explicit congressional authorisation for those operations. Multiple presidents have promised to revise or repeal the AUMF. None have succeeded. Its broad language remains a legal foundation for perpetual military engagement. Trump's 2025 strikes have brought these longstanding tensions to a head. Legal scholars, military experts, and members of Congress are warning that US war-making has entered a constitutional grey zone. By allowing the executive to define and initiate acts of war without oversight, Congress risks ceding one of its most fundamental constitutional powers. Trump ran for office promising to end America's entanglements abroad. Instead, with his June strike, he has intensified one of the longest-running debates in US history. At its core, the question remains unchanged since 1787: who gets to take the United States to war? Aishwarya Khosla is a journalist currently serving as Deputy Copy Editor at The Indian Express. Her writings examine the interplay of culture, identity, and politics. She began her career at the Hindustan Times, where she covered books, theatre, culture, and the Punjabi diaspora. Her editorial expertise spans the Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Punjab and Online desks. She was the recipient of the The Nehru Fellowship in Politics and Elections, where she studied political campaigns, policy research, political strategy and communications for a year. She pens The Indian Express newsletter, Meanwhile, Back Home. Write to her at or You can follow her on Instagram: @ink_and_ideology, and X: @KhoslaAishwarya. ... Read More

The Hindu

33 minutes ago

• The Hindu

Markets slump on heightened tensions in Middle East; Sensex drops 500 points

Stock market benchmark indices Sensex and Nifty tumbled on Monday (June 23, 2025), as intensifying tensions in the Middle East after the U.S. bombed three major nuclear sites in Iran unnerved investors. After losing over 900 points in day trade, the 30-share index recovered some lost ground to close with a loss of 511.38 points or 0.62% at 81,896.79. During the day, it tumbled 931.41 points or 1.13% to 81,476.76. The 50-share NSE Nifty dropped 140.50 points or 0.56% to 24,971.90. The U.S. bombed three major nuclear sites – Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan – in Iran, directly engaging itself in the Israel-Iran conflict. From the Sensex pack, HCL Tech, Infosys, Larsen & Toubro, Mahindra & Mahindra, Hindustan Unilever, ITC, Tata Consultancy Services and Maruti were the biggest laggards. In contrast, Trent, Bharat Electronics, Bajaj Finance and Kotak Mahindra Bank were among the gainers. In Asian markets, South Korea's Kospi and Japan's Nikkei 225 index settled lower, while Shanghai's SSE Composite index and Hong Kong's Hang Seng ended higher. European markets were trading lower in mid-session. U.S. markets ended mostly lower on Friday (June 20, 2025). Global oil benchmark Brent crude climbed 0.49% to $77.39 a barrel. 'Last Friday (June 20, 2025), markets buildup in anticipation of easing Middle East tensions, following the U.S. announcement of a two-week window to deliberate its involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict. However, the unexpected U.S. airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities over the weekend disrupted those expectations, triggering a sharp rise in crude oil prices and leading to consolidation in the domestic equity market,' Vinod Nair, Head of Research, Geojit Investments Limited, said. 'Despite the initial setback, the market recovered some of its losses, supported by gains in capital goods and metal stocks, as fears of an immediate oil supply disruption remained low,' he added. Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) bought equities worth ₹7,940.70 crore on Friday (June 20, 2025), according to exchange data. On Friday (June 20, 2025), the 30-share BSE Sensex surged 1,046.30 points or 1.29% to settle at 82,408.17. The Nifty climbed 319.15 points or 1.29% to 25,112.40.

News18

33 minutes ago

• News18

‘Ayatollah Khamenei Is A Red Line': Shia Muslims In UP Protest Against Israel

Last Updated: Protests in Lucknow were marked by emotional slogans, fiery speeches, and collective prayers for Iran amid tensions in the Middle East Tremors of tensions in the Middle East were felt in India on Sunday as thousands of Shia Muslims took to Lucknow's streets late on Sunday night, torching Israeli flags and denouncing US threats against Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. At the heart of the protest was the Dargah Hazrat Abbas in old Lucknow, where nearly 2,000 people gathered past midnight as part of the annual 'All India Centre Board of Azadari" meeting—a pre-Muharram convention typically focused on procession planning and community coordination. But this year, it turned into a thunderous display of political dissent. Chants of 'Israel Murdabad", 'Netanyahu Murdabad", and 'Ayatollah Khamenei Zindabad" echoed through the shrine complex. Protesters waved Iranian flags and placards condemning what they called 'Israeli aggression" and 'American hypocrisy". The war in Gaza and increasing threats against Iran, they said, had pushed them to speak out. Speaking to News18, Meesam Rizvi, mutawalli (caretaker) of the Dargah, said: 'Every year, we organise this meeting to coordinate Muharram processions peacefully. But this year, we couldn't stay silent. Israel has spilled the blood of innocents—women and children in Gaza—and now they are threatening the spiritual leader of our faith. Ayatollah Khamenei is a red line." Rizvi added that Israel is 'losing the war" and hence relying on US to pressure Iran. 'Netanyahu knows he cannot face Iran alone. Iran is not like the Arab regimes who kneel. Iran resists, and that's what we admire." The protest was marked by emotional slogans, fiery speeches, and collective prayers for Iran. Hundreds of Shia community leaders from across India had arrived in Lucknow for the gathering and lent their voices to the cause. Just days earlier, another powerful protest was held at the historic Asafi Masjid after Friday prayers, led by senior Shia cleric Maulana Syed Kalbe Jawad Naqvi. The protesters burned Israeli flags, raised slogans against US President Donald Trump and Netanyahu, and accused Indian media outlets of defaming Iran's Supreme Leader. Maulana Jawad said: 'Ayatollah Khamenei is not just Iran's leader—he's the religious guide of the entire Shia world. If even a single hair on his head is harmed, we will make sure Americans and Israelis find India's land too narrow for their feet." He added: 'We Shias do not hide in bunkers. We raise flags of resistance or fall as martyrs. Cowards like Netanyahu hide in bunkers." The clerics also raised questions about India's current foreign policy approach toward Israel and Palestine. Maulana Jawad invoked Mahatma Gandhi and former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, both of whom had supported the Palestinian cause, and rejected the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation. 'India has always stood with the oppressed. From Nehru to Vajpayee, India opposed Israel's illegal occupation. That legacy must not be abandoned," he said. Several other clerics echoed similar sentiments. Maulana Ehtesham Abbas Zaidi said: 'Israel is a terrorist state responsible for the destruction of an entire region. By attacking Iran, it has confirmed its nature." Maulana Raza Haider Zaidi, deputy Imam-e-Juma, said: 'Only slaves of Israel are silent today. Every free human is praying for Ayatollah Khamenei's protection. The First Published: