Oil prices climb as Brent tops $77
Oil prices rose on Thursday after Israel struck Iranian nuclear sites and both sides continued exchanging missile fire, while markets watched for any US decision on formally entering the conflict.
Brent crude futures for August delivery climbed 1.15%, or 89 cents, to $77.59 a barrel by 02:44 p.m. Mecca time.
US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude for July delivery also gained 1.52%, or $1.14, to $76.28 per barrel.
Goldman Sachs said in a note on Wednesday that the geopolitical risk premium is currently estimated at around $10 per barrel, driven by reduced Iranian supply and the possibility of wider disruptions that could push Brent prices above $90.
RBC Capital Markets analyst Helima Croft told Reuters that any perception of an existential threat in Iran could increase the risk of attacks on oil tankers and energy infrastructure, particularly if the US intervenes militarily.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
19 injured in Israeli port after Iran missile barrage
JERUSALEM: At least 19 people were injured in the northern Israeli port city of Haifa as Iran fired a fresh barrage of missiles on Friday afternoon, authorities has been launching daily missile salvos at Israel for the past week since a wide-ranging Israeli attack on its nuclear and military facilities triggered projectile slammed into an area by the docks in Haifa on Friday afternoon where it damaged a building and blew out windows, littering the ground with rubble, AFP images foreign ministry said it struck 'next to' the Al-Jarina locations of missile strikes in Israel are subject to strict military censorship rules and are not always provided in detail to the public.A spokesman for Haifa's Rambam hospital said 19 people had been injured in the city, with one in a serious condition.A military official said that 'approximately 20 missiles were launched toward Israel' in the latest Iranian than 450 missiles have been fired at the country so far, along with about 400 drones, according to Israel's National Public Diplomacy directorate added that the country's tax authority had received over 25,000 claims linked to damage caused to buildings during the launched a massive wave of strikes on June 13, triggering an immediate retaliation from areas in both countries have suffered, while Israel and Iran have traded accusations of targeting least 25 people have been killed in Israel by Iranian missile strikes, according to said on Sunday that Israeli strikes had killed at least 224 people, including military commanders, nuclear scientists and civilians. It has not updated the toll since.
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Targeting Iran's supreme leader is madness
The idea resurfaced last week that Israel may try to assassinate Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as if he were just another easy military target in the fierce war between Israel and Iran, which may soon involve the US. President Donald Trump made it clear he opposed Israel's move and did not support it. This issue is far more serious than just another military objective: it could become a matter of ideology and trigger deeply dangerous cycles of revenge. There have been times in history when warring parties refrained from targeting leaders and symbolic figures for reasons beyond direct military calculation. For example, Emperor Hirohito of Japan was a ruler and a sacred symbol. Documents confirm that he authorized his military leaders to go to war, invade Manchuria, and carry out the attack on Pearl Harbor, which led to America's entry into the Second World War. But during the war, and on the recommendation of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the US government decided not to target him. He was also excluded from the list of Japanese leaders prosecuted after the allied victory and the occupation of Tokyo. That decision paved the way for reconciliation between the US and Japan, and helped the Japanese people accept the Americans. Hirohito remained emperor and respected until his death, living for another 45 years. There have been times in history when warring parties refrained from targeting leaders and symbolic figures for reasons beyond direct military calculation. Abdulrahman Al-Rashed Ayatollah Khamenei is a spiritual leader, and any harm inflicted on him would cause wounds that may never heal — regardless of how decisive the Israeli or American victories are on the battlefield. The supreme leader is a lifelong authority, not a president. He would play a vital role in bringing about peace, just as Ayatollah Khomeini did in 1988, when he unilaterally announced an end to the war with Iraq — a war we thought would end only with the complete destruction of one or both countries. We remember that no one in the Iranian regime at that time dared to call for a ceasefire with Iraq — except the supreme leader. Some people get carried away by the intoxication of war, blinded by overwhelming military power and temporary victories, only to create hatred that could last for decades or even centuries when they could have achieved victory without doing so. There is no doubt that the Israelis possess superior intelligence capabilities and overwhelming destructive power, which allow them to penetrate deep into Iran and reach its leadership's hideouts, as they have done in Lebanon and Gaza. But Iran's supreme leader cannot be equated with Hezbollah's secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah, who was assassinated last year. The difference in symbolic weight is enormous, and the consequences of a miscalculation are grave. Ayatollah Khamenei is a spiritual leader, and any harm inflicted on him would cause wounds that may never heal. Abdulrahman Al-Rashed And even if the comparison isn't entirely accurate, the execution of Saddam Hussein on Eid Al-Adha in 2006 — though he was a Baathist and not a religious or tribal leader — came at a heavy price. US generals later attempted to reconcile with Sunni forces, but failed. Washington still suffers the consequences of that event, especially with half the Iraqi population. That grave mistake could have been avoided, and the resulting rift healed, after their military victory. Israelis are capable of stunning military victories, as they achieved in 1967 and again last year — but that doesn't mean they win the larger war. We are truly on the brink of a new and critical chapter of history that will reshape what we've known and lived through over the past half century. What's needed now is the threat of force without reaching for its maximum limits — to bring about change through consensus, as much as possible. That would benefit everyone, including Israel, the US, Iran, and all the nations in the region. Both winners and losers share an interest in reducing tensions and achieving a collective peace. • Abdulrahman Al-Rashed is a Saudi journalist and intellectual. He is the former general manager of Al-Arabiya news channel and former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, where this article was originally published. X: @aalrashed
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Deconstructing the language of war in Gaza
In the dense urban landscapes of Gaza, where homes, schools, hospitals and humanitarian offices blend into the same war-ravaged blocks, a chilling narrative has taken root: the justification of civilian deaths through the term 'human shields.' It is a phrase that, with calculated frequency, surfaces in military briefings and international news coverage — offered up as explanation, defense or even absolution for airstrikes that leave families buried beneath the rubble. But what does it mean to accuse an entire population of serving as human shields, and who benefits from this framing? This terminology has become a central rhetorical device in the ongoing war in Gaza. Israel, backed by several Western allies, repeatedly claims that Hamas embeds itself within civilian infrastructure, using hospitals, schools and densely populated areas as cover. These claims are used to justify strikes that result in high civilian casualties and the destruction of critical infrastructure, including the deaths of aid workers and UN personnel. Yet, to critically assess this narrative, we must examine not only its implications but its very foundations. International humanitarian law prohibits the use of civilians as human shields. It also mandates that all warring parties distinguish between combatants and noncombatants and take every possible precaution to avoid harming civilians. But the invocation of 'human shields' creates a dangerous legal gray zone — one that permits the reclassification of civilian-heavy areas as legitimate military targets, even in the absence of transparent evidence. In effect, the accusation of 'human shields' becomes a post hoc shield for military action, not a verified truth Hani Hazaimeh This ambiguity is often exploited. When a missile strikes a refugee camp, or when a humanitarian convoy is targeted, the fallback explanation is often a vague claim of militant presence in the vicinity. Rarely are these claims independently verified and often they are retroactively provided. In effect, the accusation becomes a post hoc shield for military action, not a verified truth. This language erodes accountability. It transforms war crimes into tactical necessity and leaves civilians in Gaza with no safe haven — not even within the walls of a UN school or beneath the tents of an aid organization. Labeling civilians as human shields does more than justify their deaths — it dehumanizes them. It subtly shifts blame from the aggressor to the victim, implying that civilian suffering is not only inevitable but strategic. This framing creates a moral detachment, desensitizing the world to scenes of bloodied children and shattered homes. It also reinforces a false dichotomy: that the people of Gaza are either combatants or collaborators, shields or threats. This dichotomy ignores the basic truth that the majority of Gaza's population are children, mothers, elders and aid workers — people who have nowhere to flee and nothing to shield but their families. Nowhere is the cost of this language more tragically evident than in the rising death toll among aid workers. The UN Relief and Works Agency, Doctors Without Borders and other humanitarian organizations have seen their staff killed while delivering food, administering medical care or sheltering refugees. These are not military operations. They are lifelines. Yet when these convoys or compounds are hit, the same justification often resurfaces: alleged militant proximity. This deflects outrage and inhibits meaningful investigations. More importantly, it contributes to the breakdown of humanitarian corridors and the paralysis of relief operations — leaving an already besieged population even more vulnerable. Nowhere is the cost of this language more tragically evident than in the rising death toll among aid workers Hani Hazaimeh Words matter. They shape public opinion, influence international policy and determine whether tragedies are investigated or ignored. The language used to describe the war in Gaza must reflect the reality on the ground — not political agendas or military talking points. The international media must rigorously interrogate claims of human shields being used and resist the urge to parrot official narratives without evidence. Human rights organizations must push for independent investigations into all strikes that result in civilian deaths, particularly those targeting or affecting aid agencies. Governments and international bodies must hold all parties accountable to the standards of international law — not selectively or symbolically, but consistently and transparently. And most of all, we must remember that beneath the euphemisms and geopolitical calculus are real people — families that grieve, children who fear and communities that endure trauma that no terminology can justify. The people of Gaza are not shields. They are human beings. And their suffering should not be rationalized — it should be stopped. • Hani Hazaimeh is a senior editor based in Amman. X: @hanihazaimeh
