Israel-Iran war: AVIC Chengdu share price edges higher despite fear of Hormuz Straight close buzz

Israel-Iran war: Despite weak global market sentiments post-US attacks in Iran, J-10 fighter jet maker company AVIC Chengdu Aircraft Limited remained under the bull's radar. AVIC Chengdu share price edges higher during Monday deals despite fear of Hormuz Straight closure. AVIC Chengdu's share price today opened upside at 84 yuan per share and touched an intraday high of 85.04 yuan per share. However, AVIC Chengdu shares witnessed some profit booking and came down to 84.20 yuan per share levels.
According to stock market experts, AVIC Chengdu's share price witnessed some selling pressure after the outbreak of the Israel-Iran war last week and came close to 80 yuan per share. However, AVIC Chengdu's share price sustained above its strong support base, standing at 79 yuan per share. So, bulls are betting high on the stock after the stock showed some resilience at the lower support despite high tension in the Middle East. They said that AVIC Chengdu's share price may go up to 105 yuan per share levels once the stock closes above 86 yuan per share.
Speaking on the technical outlook of AVIC Chengdu share price, Anshul Jain, Head of Research at Lakshmishree Investment, said, "AVIC Chengdu share price broke out of an 18-day cup and handle pattern that is part of a larger flag formation, triggering a bullish signal at 86 yuan per share. The stock must hold above the key support zone at 79 for the breakout to sustain. A swift move toward 105 yuan per share is highly likely if this level holds. The broader structure indicates consolidation within strength, and any volume expansion will further support the bullish continuation."
The Pentagon on Sunday announced that the US launched Operation Midnight Hammer and conducted "precision strikes" at three of Iran's key nuclear facilities, including Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Iran's Ambassador to India, Iraj Elahi, has slammed Israel and the US, stating that both countries have gravely violated the UN Charter, international law, and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) by attacking Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities. He said that the governments of the US and Israel are fully responsible for the "hazardous consequences of this grave crime."
After the US airstrikes in Iran, the Iranian government threatened to close the Hormuz Straight, which is fueling crude oil prices, as the closure would negatively impact the demand-supply constraint.
"The United States and Zionist regime have committed a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law, and the NPT by attacking Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities. The aggressive US government and the Zionist regime are held fully responsible for the hazardous consequences of this grave crime," Elahi said.
Iraj Elahi said that Iran expects the United Nations and its responsible members to condemn the US and Israel for their military actions against nuclear facilities.
Speaking on the developments in the Israel-Iran war, Morgan Stanley Chief Economic Strategist Ellen Zentner said, "With the US economy already expected to slow under pressure from the Trump administration's high import tariffs, a rise in oil prices resulting from the conflict "could provide powerful downward pressure on households' ability to spend... and that could slow GDP even more."
(With inputs from ANI, Reuters)
Disclaimer: The views and recommendations made above are those of individual analysts or broking companies and not of Mint. We advise investors to check with certified experts before making any investment decisions.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Hindustan Times

20 minutes ago

• Hindustan Times

Iran oil doomsday in Hormuz may be more fear than reality: Bousso

, not 55km , in paragraph 8) Iran oil doomsday in Hormuz may be more fear than reality: Bousso * US strikes on Iran spur fear of disruption to Middle East oil exports * Iran able to block the Strait of Hormuz, has tried in the past * Disruptions likely to be met by swift response from US Navy By Ron Bousso LONDON, - U.S. strikes on several Iranian nuclear sites represent a meaningful escalation of the Middle East conflict that could lead Tehran to disrupt vital exports of oil and gas from the region, sparking a surge in energy prices. But history tells us that any disruption would likely be short-lived. Investors and energy markets have been on high alert since Israel launched a wave of surprise airstrikes across Iran on June 13, fearing disruption to oil and gas flows out of the Middle East, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint between Iran and Oman through which around 20% of global oil and gas demand flows. Benchmark Brent crude prices have risen by 10% to over $77 a barrel since June 13. While Israel and Iran have targeted elements of each other's energy infrastructure, there has been no significant disruption to maritime activity in the region so far. But President Donald Trump's decision to join Israel by bombing three of Iran's main nuclear sites in the early hours of Sunday could alter Tehran's calculus. Iran, left with few cards to play, could retaliate by hitting U.S. targets across the region and disrupting oil flows. While such a move would almost certainly lead to a sharp spike in global energy prices, history and current market dynamics suggest any move would likely be less damaging than investors may fear. CAN THEY DO IT? The first question to ask is whether Iran is actually capable of seriously disrupting or blocking the Strait of Hormuz. The answer is probably yes. Iran could attempt to lay mines across the Strait, which is 34 km wide at its narrowest point. The country's army or the paramilitary Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps could also try to strike or seize vessels in the Gulf, a method they have used on several occasions in recent years. Moreover, while Hormuz has never been fully blocked, it has been disrupted several times. During the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, the two sides engaged in the so-called "Tanker Wars" in the Gulf. Iraq targeted Iranian ships, and Iran attacked commercial ships, including Saudi and Kuwaiti oil tankers and even U.S. navy ships. Following appeals from Kuwait, then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan deployed the navy between 1987 and 1988 to protect convoys of oil tankers in what was known as Operation Earnest Will. It concluded shortly after a U.S. navy ship shot down Air Iran flight 655, killing all of its 290 passengers on board. Tensions in the strait flared up again at the end of 2007 in a series of skirmishes between the Iranian and U.S. navies. This included one incident where Iranian speedboats approached U.S. warships, though no shots were fired. In April 2023, Iranian troops seized the Advantage Sweet crude tanker, which was chartered by Chevron, in the Gulf of Oman. The vessel was released more than a year later. Iranian disruption of maritime traffic through the Gulf is therefore certainly not unprecedented, but any attempt would likely be met by a rapid, forceful response from the U.S. navy, limiting the likelihood of a persistent supply shock. HISTORY LESSON Indeed, history has shown that severe disruptions to global oil supplies have tended to be short-lived. Iraq's invasion of neighbouring Kuwait in August 1990 caused the price of Brent crude to double to $40 a barrel by mid-October. Prices returned to the pre-invasion level by January 1991 when a U.S.-led coalition started Operation Desert Storm, which led to the liberation of Kuwait the following month. The start of the second Gulf war between March and May 2003 was even less impactful. A 46% rally in the lead-up to the war between November 2002 and March 2003 was quickly reversed in the days preceding the start of the U.S.-led military campaign. Similarly, Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 sparked a sharp rally in oil prices to $130 a barrel, but prices returned to their pre-invasion levels of $95 by mid-August. These relatively quick reversals of oil price spikes were largely thanks to the ample spare production capacity available at the time and the fact that the rapid oil price increase curbed demand, says Tamas Varga, an analyst at oil brokerage PVM. Global oil markets were also rocked during the 1973 Arab oil embargo and after the 1979 revolution in Iran, when strikes on the country's oilfields severely disrupted production. But those did not involve the blocking of Hormuz and were not met with a direct U.S. military response. SPARE CACITY The current global oil market certainly has spare capacity. OPEC , an alliance of producing nations, today holds around 5.7 million barrels per day in excess capacity, of which Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates hold 4.2 million bpd. The concern today is that the vast majority of the oil from Saudi Arabia and the UAE is shipped via the Strait of Hormuz. The two Gulf powers could bypass the strait by oil pipelines, however. Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, producing around 9 million bpd, has a crude pipeline that runs from the Abqaiq oilfield on the Gulf coast in the east to the Red Sea port city of Yanbu in the west. The pipeline has capacity of 5 million bpd and was able to temporarily expand its capacity by another 2 million bpd in 2019. The UAE, which produced 3.3 million bpd of crude oil in April, has a 1.5 million bpd pipeline linking its onshore oilfields to the Fujairah oil terminal that is east of the Strait of Hormuz. But this western route could be exposed to attacks from the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen, who have severely disrupted shipping through the Suez Canal in recent years. Additionally, Iraq, Kuwait and Qatar currently have no clear alternatives to the strait. It is possible that Iran will choose not to take the dramatic step of blocking the strait in part because doing so would disrupt its own oil exports. Tehran may also consider any further escalation fruitless in light of U.S. involvement and will instead try to downplay the importance of the U.S. strikes and come back to nuclear negotiations. In the meantime, spooked energy markets, fearing further escalation, are apt to respond to the U.S. strikes with a sharp jump in crude prices. But even in a doomsday scenario where the Strait of Hormuz is blocked, history suggests markets should not expect any supply shock to be persistent. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest , your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn and X. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.

The Print

20 minutes ago

• The Print

Will Russia & China back Iran after US strikes? They're quiet, calculating allies

The Russian foreign ministry, in a wordy statement , condemned American strikes on 'several nuclear facilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran.' Russia even reiterated its previous statement – that the US attack stood in 'violation of international law, the UN Charter, and relevant resolutions by the UN Security Council, which has consistently and unequivocally deemed such actions unacceptable.' How does this play out for powers like Russia and China, which have continued to speak out against any military action? In March this year, Russia, China, and Iran jointly stated that Tehran's nuclear programme is 'exclusively for peaceful purposes, and not for the development of nuclear weapons.' Israel's Operation Rising Lion seemed to be an independently led series of strikes against Iran. But after six bombers flew 18 hours to attack three nuclear sites in Iran, Israel's action now seems to have been part of a broader deception strategy—which the United States utilised to dismantle Iran's nuclear programme. In its call for peace, Russia further demanded 'an immediate end to aggression and for stepping up efforts to bring the situation back onto a peaceful, diplomatic track.' Russia's position on the crisis remains standard—calling for peace, negotiations, and diplomacy as effective channels for a resolution. Meanwhile, no part of Russia's statement claims direct intervention in the crisis, which must come as no surprise. Although a strategic partner of Iran, Russia's offerings have been more implicit, such as supporting Tehran's civilian nuclear programme or defence exports. While the Kremlin itself is fighting a war next door, it may still offer to play the role of a cardinal peacebroker between the US and Iran—and prove to be the most effective of all. Russia remains the best-suited friend for Iran in the present crisis. Moscow stands as Iran's most strategically placed partner in the region. It not only possesses deep regional expertise but has operated militarily and diplomatically across the Middle East for decades. And if Iran is to receive any meaningful backing against the US and its allies, it can come only from a capable nuclear power like Russia. A most unlikely situation. Meanwhile, as Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi proceeds to meet President Vladimir Putin, Russia could project a few probable security guarantees on Iran's behalf. This could include assurances against regime-change operations—an option President Donald Trump has openly considered on his social media—recognition of Iran's sovereignty and right to self-defence, and possible military non-aggression agreements brokered through multilateral channels. As for the United States and its allies, Russia may push for Iran's recommitment to nuclear limits under renewed international supervision, ending any proxy attacks on American and allied forces and perhaps securing more regional support for Iran. Aside from peace brokerage, Russia can offer its military-technical cooperation—which can include upgrading Iran's advanced air defence systems, sharing real-time satellite surveillance data to help Iran monitor US troop movements or detect incoming attacks, and providing space surveillance support. But what about this conflict's likely impact on Russia? It's less of a blow and more of an opportunity. As global crude oil prices surge, Moscow might return as the most reliable oil exporter globally. Second, there will likely be reduced American attention toward the Black Sea, Eastern Europe, and the Arctic—which are fundamental to the Kremlin's strategic vision for the region. It has also restored Russia's position in the global power lexicon, which had weakened after the Ukraine war. Also read: Trump tried to belittle India, but his Iran gamble has handed Modi unexpected diplomatic space China's response China, too, has condemned the attack, citing violation of the UN charter and international law. While this seems to be the standard response, Tehran values solidarity. China, however, would not directly engage in the conflict for two big reasons. First, Beijing likes to maintain strategic ambiguity over military risks and prefers to exert influence through diplomacy, economic leverage, and other indirect means. Directly confronting the US—whose prominence, mainly in terms of naval presence, has only grown—offers little advantage. Second, China's primary concern is energy stability. Direct involvement in a Gulf conflict would jeopardise its vital oil imports. While disruptions to Iranian oil exports would undoubtedly impact China, any direct military involvement would force Beijing to undertake a substantial and risky reconfiguration of its broader energy import strategy with other Gulf partners—which would be risky and unaffordable. However, there are other possible ways for Beijing to support Iran. While China avoids overt arms transfer to hot zones, it can covertly share technology that may include missile guidance technology, drones, cyber tactics, and so on. There was a strong role of space technology in the US's attacks on Iran, allowing it to strike nuclear bases with precision and without being detected. China could covertly offer limited space technology to support Iran, which Russia is also likely to offer. As permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, Russia and China possess significant diplomatic influence that they can jointly utilise to advocate for Iran's position and pressure the UN to take meaningful actions. Meanwhile, the effectiveness of this diplomatic support against America's non-concessional stance on Tehran's nuclear ambitions remains to be seen. But both Russia and China are well-positioned to lead global efforts through multilateral institutions such as the UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency. They can push for an international recognition of the potential radioactive and humanitarian consequences of further escalation, and urge a shift from punitive frameworks to preventive diplomacy. Rishi Gupta is a commentator on global affairs. Views are personal. (Edited by Zoya Bhatti)

The Hindu

22 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.