Quantcast
Connect with us

Trump’s crackdown on Iran’s oil exports could backfire badly – with serious risks to global economy

Published

on

- Commentary

The US has unnerved the world oil market by ramping up the pressure in its long-running dispute with Iran. It has announced that, after May 1, it won’t renew the exemptions given to eight countries that enable them to buy Iranian oil. Those affected, which include China, India, Japan, Italy and South Korea, will face sanctions from Washington if they don’t comply. The move will likely squeeze global oil supply at a time when it is already struggling from disruptions in Venezuela, Libya and Nigeria. Indeed, the Brent crude price has already risen on the back of the announcement to US$74 (£57) per barrel, the highest since last November.

ADVERTISEMENT

President Donald Trump has said he is confident that a supply crunch can be avoided thanks to extra output from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, but traders and Asian petrochemical firms are sceptical that these countries will fully comply. In recent months, Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members have cut supply dramatically to redress their fears that hefty US shale oil output and declining global energy demand could cause a supply glut that would batter prices.

In December the oil cartel, along with Russia and other allies, agreed to reduce output by 1.2m barrels per day (bpd), cutting the global total volume by more than 1%. They have since exceeded those benchmarks, with Saudi Arabia alone reducing supply by 800,000 bpd in total. In March the kingdom slashed production to a four-year low of 9.82m bpd, making up the majority of OPEC’s reduction of 295,000 daily barrels for the month to 30.3m bpd.

Trump has already been calling on OPEC to raise production, with little success. The Saudis may be close allies of the Americans, but they will only act in concert with their OPEC counterparts and many around the table will be wary of risking reducing prices at an unpredictable time for the global economy.

No one ever forgets when the Saudis famously went against Western interests in the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973, in response to US policies with similarly global consequences: president Richard Nixon had scrapped the gold standard, heavily devaluing the US dollar, and then backed the Israelis in the Yom Kippur war against Egypt. Inflation-adjusted oil prices nearly doubled during the embargo from around US$26 per barrel in 1973 to over US$46 per barrel the following year, sending economic shockwaves around the world.

America’s latest move against Iran is making things worse for the global economy at a time when it has already been under pressure from rising interest rates and trade wars. If Iran’s entire output were removed – a big if since it is far from certain that all countries will comply with the Americans – it would wipe another 1m bpd or so off the world supply.

ADVERTISEMENT

Brent crude price, daily chart

Macrotrends

 

Any resulting rise in oil prices would spread to other commodity prices, leading to inflationary pressure – particularly in countries affected by the end of waiver such as India, where inflation has already started picking up. Such countries would also see direct effects on their import bill and hence their balance of trade. For every dollar increase in oil rates in India, for instance, the import bill will rise by R110 billion (£1.2 billion) at a time when the country’s trade deficit already stands at over £8 billion.

ADVERTISEMENT

In many cases, such economic effects are all too capable of being exported. Take South Korea, which is the second biggest oil importer from Iran after China. South Korea mainly imports condensate, an ultra-light form of crude oil used for petrochemical products like naptha which it exports to neighbouring countries. If these petrochemical exports fall because Korean prices are no longer competitive, its neighbours will have to look further afield, creating a trade imbalance in the region.

In the run-up to Trump’s campaign to be re-elected for a second presidential term next year – assuming he makes it that far – there is therefore a great deal riding on this US gambit. If OPEC does not step up to the plate, and the oil price continues surging upwards, it could yet become the moment when the longstanding fears around the health of the world economy finally crystallise into a full-blown downturn.The Conversation

ADVERTISEMENT

By Nafis Alam, Associate Professor, University of Reading

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Commentary

Fox News has created an ‘alternative reality’ to protect Trump: Media Matters

Published

on

After Wednesday’s testimony from Ambassador Gordon Sondland in the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump, CNN and MSNBC were full of legal and political analysts who found Sondland’s testimony to be terrible for the president. But Fox News, a report by Media Matters’ Matt Gertz demonstrates, generally had very different coverage of Wednesday’s hearing — coverage that was overtly favorable to Trump and his allies.

Continue Reading

Commentary

How the impeachment proceedings laid out a devastating case for a bribery charge against Trump

Published

on

Did President Donald Trump try to bribe Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the most explosive allegation to arise in the impeachment proceedings?

While it wouldn’t be required to show Trump bribed Zelensky in order to justify impeachment — other charges related to campaign finance law, separation of powers, or civil rights abuses could be warranted — bribery is the most potent allegation because it is laid out explicitly in the Constitution is a possible basis for impeachment.

And based on the evidence provided in the two weeks of public impeachment proceedings, the case for bribery is already overwhelming.

Continue Reading
 

Commentary

There’s no way to back Trump without backing Putin

Published

on

After the explosive testimony of Gordon Sondland — the EU ambassador and major Donald Trump donor — on Wednesday, it was hard to imagine how Democrats might build on it in Thursday's hearing. On the surface, the witnesses seemed less significant: Fiona Hill, the former Russia director for the National Security Council, and David Holmes, a U.S. diplomat working in Ukraine.

This article was originally published at Salon

But, nope, it was another day of riveting testimony that made excruciatingly clear that the entire Ukraine extortion scheme was directed by President Trump — and was not, as Republicans have begun desperately hinting, some "freelancing" by Trump's subordinates in which he somehow played no part.

Continue Reading
 
 

Happy Holidays!

As a special thank you from all of us at Raw, we're offering Raw Story ad-free for 15% off - just $2 per week. Now 'til Dec. 31st.
Offer Expires In:
close-link