Quantcast
Connect with us

Why the US-Iran conflict isn’t driving oil prices higher – and why it probably should

Published

on

Assassinations, militaries on high alert, geopolitical tensions at the boil. Any one of these in Persian Gulf countries would have roiled oil prices a few years ago. Today, even in combination, they hardly register.

Is the oil market now so secure that even the prospect of war between Iran and the U.S. has little effect? More broadly, is this relatively sanguine response warranted at this time?

ADVERTISEMENT

Reasons oil traders should be nervous

The assassination of Qassem Soleimani, Iran’s top military commander and head of its Revolutionary Guards, happened on Iraqi soil, without Iraqi permission, while Soleimani was reportedly on official business.

This attack by a U.S. drone, which killed up to 10 Iranian and Iraqi personnel, transgressed two nations’ sovereignty. It could be easily defined as an act of war.

Iran did so and responded with a missile barrage at two U.S. bases, apparently causing no casualties. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, meanwhile, completely rejected Iraq’s demand that American troops leave its soil, only a week after U.S. warplanes carried out lethal attacks on Iran-backed militias in Iraq, also without Iraqi authorization.

These are grim new events in a volatile region essential to global oil supply, yet they had no important impact on oil prices. Over a few days, prices went from $US66 per barrel to $69, then down to $65. This isn’t even a hiccup; in a year, it will be invisible on the price curve.

True, President Donald Trump said Iran was “standing down,” and there would be new sanctions, not attacks. Yet this president is notorious for impulsive decisions. Iran, moreover, may take its time in seeking revenge.

ADVERTISEMENT

And in the midst of military tensions, Iran mistook a commercial airliner for a warplane and shot it down, killing 176. It was a terrible echo of the 1988 downing of an airliner by the U.S. warship Vincennes in another moment of high military anxiety.

Reasons they aren’t

Oil traders therefore have much reason to be nervous. But they aren’t. Why?

A big reason, which I noted in a previous Conversation article, is that the global oil market has abundant supply, fed by soaring U.S. production. In under a decade, America has been transformed from a huge importer to a major new exporter. These exports grew from 0.6 million barrels per day in early 2017 to over 4 million by December 2019.

ADVERTISEMENT

For several years, OPEC and Russia have cut their own production to keep prices from falling, due to U.S. supply. Also, oil demand has weakened due to the global economic slowdown, caused by the U.S.-China trade war, a slumping auto industry and other factors. This has supported a perception that the oil market can absorb almost any shock, even the loss of life in a military exchange.

ADVERTISEMENT

Experienced observers I know say that a stable oil market is often an oxymoron. A host of churning uncertainties exist just beneath the surface. War in the Gulf, however limited initially, could easily get out of hand – that’s what wars do. No one in the region wants this.

Yet no one is in control of an extremely tense situation that continues to worsen and now involves loss of life. To me, oil prices today do not reflect this reality of risk.

Higher prices would be better for a reason that has nothing to do with geopolitics, too. The world needs less consumption, fewer emissions, and help in its shift to electric transport. Cheap oil will not help.

ADVERTISEMENT

[ Insight, in your inbox each day. You can get it with The Conversation’s email newsletter. ]The Conversation

Scott L. Montgomery, Lecturer, Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington

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

2020 Election

Paul Krugman issues dire warning about next four months under Trump

Published

on

In his column for the New York Times, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman expressed dismay that -- even with coronavirus infection rates going through the roof across the country --Donald Trump is still acting like the health crisis is over and Americans should return to their normal lives.

Noting that Vice President Mike Pence recently penned an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal proclaiming, “There Isn’t a Coronavirus ‘Second Wave',” the columnist was gobsmacked by the Trump administration's "delusions and magical thinking that have marked every step of the Trump administration’s response to Covid-19."

Continue Reading

CNN

‘Gaslighting on a massive scale’: Doctor warns Trump is lying us into a COVID disaster

Published

on

On CNN Friday, Dr. Celine Grounder tore into President Donald Trump's ongoing falsehoods about the coronavirus pandemic.

"No matter how many times public health officials, especially like Anthony Fauci, speak the truth, what does it do, Doctor, when the president continues to lie to the public in face of a public health crisis?" asked anchor Kate Bolduan.

"This is gaslighting on an enormous scale, and means until people eventually get sick or their family members get sick, the communities hit hard, they won't believe it, and then it will be too late," said Grounder. "The problem is there's a lag period from the time that somebody's infected and starts to develop symptoms a couple days later. We don't see people get severely sick and need to be hospitalized and in ICUs until a week into disease, and talking about probably one to two weeks of lag time from the time somebody's exposed at least before you start to see hospitalizations and then another couple weeks before you start to see deaths."

Continue Reading
 

2020 Election

Republicans ‘anxious’ as campaign aides observe ‘a sudden alertness’ in Trump that he is losing: report

Published

on

Republican are growing increasingly worried about President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign, according to a new report in Politico.

“I’d say Republicans are feeling anxious, and there’s a real sense of urgency for the president to precisely define his second term agenda. What are we running on? His answers on that have been lacking and he needs to show people why he wants four more years,” Scott Jennings, a top political adviser in the George W. Bush White House, told the publication.

Continue Reading
 
 
You need honest news coverage. Help us deliver it. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free.
close-image