Zahra-ME-Eco-Cri-Oped thumbnail-Oct-2024-AP

The past few months were relatively calm for global commodity markets, allowing central banks to lower inflation targets and pivot to looser monetary policies. However, what many may not have factored into their calculations is this new nightmare on the cards – a resurgent volatility within commodity markets as the Middle Eastern region braces for a potential Israeli response to Iran’s missile attack on 1st October amid the expansion of Israel’s brutal aggression and assassination of key leaders.

The spillover impact of the escalating crisis is already visible within the crude market. From USD 71.77 per barrel on September 30th, the price of Brent Crude oil jumped to USD 77.72/bbl on 6th October, with the major impact coming from President Joe Biden’s comment on discussions with Israel of the possibility of strikes on Iran’s oil infrastructure. Although later contradicted by one of his subsequent statements, the option remains on the table, with analyses estimating that a major strike on Iran’s export capacity could take up to 1.5 million barrels per day (MMbpd) of supply off the market. Satellite imagery has revealed that oil tankers are already vacating waters around Iran’s principal Kharg terminal for crude exports, which had risen to 1.65-1.7 MMbpd in July-August despite US sanctions.

However, at least in the short term, several factors can still help moderate the impact of a major strike on Iran’s export capacity, should it occur. Notably, US crude inventories rose by 3.9 million barrels (MMbbl) to 417 MMbbl in the week ended September 27th, while OPEC+ has over 5 MMbpd of spare capacity, which could be tapped if needed. Assuming that OPEC+ refrains from increasing production, oil prices could soar by up to USD 20/bbl, as warned by Goldman Sachs, but there are well-founded reasons to argue that both Washington and OPEC+ would prefer to intervene, even if not immediately.

OPEC+ may not be comfortable with prices high enough to force a reduction in global oil demand or hasten transition towards a renewable energy future. Likewise, although the US is a significant oil producer, it still depends on imported oil and refined products due to the majority of its refining capacity being geared towards dealing with heavier and less sweet oil, unlike the one majorly produced at home. Additionally, gasoline prices in the US tend to move with Brent rather than West Texas Intermediate (WTI), which represents oil produced in the US. This also suggests why Washington would want to carefully weigh potential consequences of strikes on Iranian oil facilities – that too just weeks before the Presidential Elections.

Another front is the Red Sea, where Houthis have attacked and damaged an oil tanker and a bulk carrier in their new wave of attacks. They have reportedly also sent email alerts to several shipping companies to prepare for an attack on this trading route. Past months have, however, demonstrated that the Red Sea shipping crisis has not had large effects on global commodity markets, given the options for rerouting vessels.

It is the Strait of Hormuz where a significant disruption in trade flows could be the most problematic. The Strait serves as the only passage from oil-rich Gulf to the Indian Ocean responsible for handling about 30% of the world’s seaborne oil trade. In the worst case, prices can surge over USD 150/bbl if Iran shuts the Strait entirely – an option that could be easier for Tehran to pursue if it sees its oil production and export capacity targeted. While transmission pipelines exist as alternative outlets to the Strait, their limited capacities suggest they can only serve as imperfect substitutes.

Disruption in supplies through the Strait, accounting for 20% of the global LNG transit, can also drive up natural gas prices. Additionally, Tehran has warned of potential strikes on Israel’s energy and gas installations if provoked, which could add to price pressures, as Israel remains a significant gas producer and regional exporter.

Given the importance of energy in producing and transporting other commodities, aggregate commodity prices could surge. Such unrest within commodity markets would send shockwaves worldwide, although with varying degrees of impact across countries. The greatest effect will be felt in net-oil-importing countries, including most economies in Asia-Pacific and South Asia, such as Pakistan.

Looking ahead, the potential of a commodity price shock, should the conflict escalate, cannot be underestimated. Now is the time for the West to embrace strategic foresight and realise the extent of the potential ramifications of continuing to support Israel’s incessant aggression that has provoked regional players and spiralled the region into a crisis.

Zahra Niazi is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. She can be reached at: [email protected].


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »