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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
[ Insight, in your inbox each day. You can get it with The Conversation’s email newsletter. ]
Fox & Friends floats impeachment conspiracy theory about GAO findings of Trump crimes against Ukraine
"Fox & Friends" assured viewers they could ignore a federal watchdog agency's findings that President Donald Trump broke the law by withholding Ukraine aid.
The nonpartisan the Government Accountability Office found the White House Office of Management and Budget violated the law by freezing $400 million in congressionally approved military aid, but the Fox News hosts suggested the agency was only trying to hurt the president.
"Do you think it's just a coincidence that that news would drop exactly the same day the (impeachment) trial started?" said co-host Steve Doocy.
Co-hosts Pete Hegseth and Ainsley Earhardt agreed, and accepted administration denials at face value.
GOP senators are questioning allegiance to Trump as impeachment becomes a reality: Morning Joe panel
According to members of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" panel, Donald Trump may see more defections by previously supportive Republican senators now that the impeachment of the president has become a reality and their conduct will be scrutinized by voters back home.
Speaking with columnist David Ignatius, host Joe Scarborough noted that multiple Republican senators -- including several who are retiring -- are going soft on defending the president and may be inclined to allowing multiple witnesses who could damage the president.
"David Ignatius, you know, we've known Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) both of us, for a long time. and as they coming to the end of their careers," Scarborough began. "I would think [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell would be concerned that these gentlemen would vote their conscience and not just blindly follow Donald Trump and would vote to have a fair, open hearing and trial and get this new evidence that's coming in, that's come in since the House impeached."
Iran’s supreme leader says Trump is a ‘clown’ who will betray Iranians
Iran’s supreme leader said President Donald Trump is a “clown” who only pretends to support the Iranian people but will “push a poisonous dagger” into their backs, as he struck a defiant tone in his first Friday sermon in Tehran in eight years.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the mass funerals for Iran’s top general, who was killed in a US airstrike earlier this month, show that the Iranian people support the Islamic Republic despite its recent trials. He said the “cowardly” killing of Soleimani had taken out the most effective commander in the battle against the Islamic State group.