finance

Published on
24/03/2026 – 1:25 GMT+1

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Tuesday sealed a free-trade agreement with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, slashing tariffs on most EU goods and farm exports.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The deal marks another win for Brussels as it races to diversify trade ties and lock in strategic partners amid rising global tensions.

The pact will save the EU €1 billion a year in duties, the Commission said, with exports projected to climb as much as 33% over the next decade.

Agriculture proved a flashpoint, with EU farmers already pushing back against the Mercosur trade agreement and a legal challenge from MEPs threatening ratification.

Tariffs will eventually fall to zero on products including cheese (over three years), wine, some fruit and vegetables, chocolate and processed foods.

On the toughest issues — beef and sheep, which sank talks in 2023 — Australia agreed to quotas of 30,600 and 25,000 tonnes a year, respectively.

A safeguard mechanism will allow the EU to shield sensitive sectors if a surge in Australian imports harms the bloc’s market.

Beyond agriculture, the agreement opens access to Australia’s critical raw materials, including aluminium, lithium and manganese.

Brussels also failed to scrap Australia’s luxury car tax. Instead, 75% of EU electric vehicles will be exempt.

The deal is a geostrategic push

The Commission expects strong export gains in key sectors, including dairy (up to 48%), motor vehicles (52%) and chemicals (20%).

Brussels has prioritized the deal as it builds partnerships in the Indo-Pacific, where China’s influence has become central. A security and defence partnership with Canberra was also announced Tuesday.

“The EU and Australia may be geographically far apart but we couldn’t be closer in terms of how we see the world,” von der Leyen said, adding: “With these dynamic new partnerships on security and defence, as well as trade, we are moving even closer together.”

Since Donald Trump returned to power in 2025, trade agreements have taken on sharper geostrategic weight for the EU as it seeks new markets.

In 2025, Brussels struck deals with Mexico, Switzerland and Indonesia. The Mercosur pact was also signed earlier this year and will be provisionally applied from 1 May despite a European Parliament legal challenge.

More could follow. Talks are ongoing with the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates, and countries in Eastern and Southern Africa, von der Leyen told EU ambassadors on 9 March.

The “so hot right now” meme from Zoolander has found an unlikely avatar in Cashea. As Venezuela’s preeminent Buy-Now-Pay-Later (BNPL) solution, Cashea isn’t just a startup. It is a macroeconomic bellwether. By some estimates, its transaction volume accounts for roughly 4% of Venezuela’s GDP, a staggering concentration of financial flow for a single private entity.

But being “hot” attracts different kinds of heat.

Recently, a “robotic-like” user, @VecertRadar, reported a massive data breach at Cashea. The leak was forensic in its damage, exposing 29 million store records, 15,227 partner business details, and a complete history of 79 million transactions. Shortly after, the “catch-up arc” of Venezuelan tech hit another snag: Yummy, the nation’s super-app pioneer, suffered a targeted strike on its Yummy Rides vertical, compromising rider data. When tourism wholesalers like BT Travel Solutions are also hit, a pattern emerges.

Venezuela is returning to the world stage, but it is entering through a side door left unlocked. These incidents are the canaries in the coal mine for an ecosystem that has focused heavily on consumer-facing solutions, like FinTech, Crypto and Ride-Hailing, while neglecting the unglamorous, high-margin infrastructure required to protect it.

In the big leagues of global business, cybersecurity is often viewed as a vitamin (a nice-to-have) until a breach turns it into a painkiller (a necessity). For Venezuela, the transition (not THAT one) from vitamin to painkiller is happening overnight.

While the regional Latin American cybersecurity market is projected to reach between $14 billion and $23 billion, these figures often omit the Venezuela factor: a market ripe for the taking because it is basically uncontested. This is a classic innovation’s Blue Ocean business opportunity. While some local entrepreneurial efforts remains obsessively focused on crypto-wallets and payment gateways, a massive structural deficit in data protection has created an opening for sustainable, high-margin business models.

Consider the EBITDA margins (a proxy for operational cash generation). In the software-as-a-service (SaaS) cybersecurity sector, operational health is robust, with margins often hovering around 40% (good). In a country where traditional industries grapple with heavy physical overhead and regulatory friction, these light-CAPEX models offer a much cleaner path to profitability.

Venezuela’s primary competitive advantage isn’t just its lack of competition, it’s the cost of its potential defensive talent.

Historically, the country was not considered a deep pool of digital labor by companies abroad. As regional talent-pool peers like Argentina outprice themselves and Colombian talent reaches its cost-advantage ceiling, Venezuelan developers and security analysts bring a potential high-value, cost-efficient resource. This creates a price-competitive entry point for local startups to build software that can eventually scale.

Furthermore, Venezuelans have spent a decade experimenting and building solutions to protect wealth in one of the most volatile financial environments on earth. This has fostered a unique brand of technical sophistication. Our talent isn’t just coding, they are battle-testing systems against systemic instability. If this talent can be harnessed to move from protecting personal crypto-wallets to protecting corporate data infrastructure, the exit opportunity for these ventures becomes very attractive for local and international investors alike.

Venezuela does not need to reinvent the wheel. It only needs to be efficient in catching-up. Our regional peers have already proven that Latin American cybersecurity can bring international venture capital to the table:

• Lumu Technologies (Colombia): Recently closed a $30M Series B by focusing on Continuous Compromise Assessment.
• Strike (Uruguay): Uses AI to automate simulated attacks to find holes, proving that small markets can produce global speedboats.
• Metabase Q (Mexico): Their strategic alliance with Google/Mandiant shows that local players can become essential partners for global behemoths.

The message is clear: the market is wide open for “champions” who can protect the data of both governments and the private sector.

The Cashea leak is a flagship reminder: size attracts.

For founders looking to enter this light-CAPEX space, always use the Speedboat approach. Rather than spending two years building a complex digital product in a sandbox, entrepreneurs can start as high-level consultancies. By offering assessments, due diligence, and compliance audits to major corporations or big family businesses first, a team can establish a brand of trust while identifying the exact pain points of the market. Build a custom solution, learn, MVP (minimum viable product) and pivot to a robust software solution. For my mapping of opportunities, I already stumbled with players like Niblion to begin to test these waters, but the ocean remains largely empty.

Regulation also plays a big role in this market. I’m not an expert, nor I want to focus on regulation for I see the business perspective, but doing a quick search, Venezuela does have a law centered in cybersecurity. However it does lack a unified data protection law for consumers and businesses. The current law focuses on defense and cyber-sovereignty. Maybe looking at Brazil, Colombia and Mexico, who have already done the legwork on legislative frameworks, may make our job easier.

The Cashea leak is a flagship reminder: size attracts. As big companies like Zinli (Mercantil’s own digital wallet play) and small players Coco Wallet (facilitating crypto-to-fiat transitions) continue to expand, to name a few, the surface area for attacks grows exponentially.

The typical Venezuelan focus on protecting wealth via crypto and FinTech has been successful, but with its own set of risks. Without a robust cybersecurity layer, these ventures become sitting ducks for maligned players.

For investors, the opportunity lies in light-CAPEX models with high margins and a desperate client base. For founders, the opportunity is to build the champions that will protect the next decade of Venezuelan growth. Sometimes building a startup isn’t about changing the world, but making a good and profitable solution, while making a buck down the road.The catch-up arc will be hard, but for those providing the shields, it will be incredibly profitable.e

Published on
23/03/2026 – 15:14 GMT+1

The European Commission on Monday took final steps to provisionally apply the Mercosur trade deal from 1 May, covering Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The move uses a special procedure to ensure the deal takes effect despite a judicial review launched by the European Parliament after a pivotal 21 January vote suspended ratification.

“The priority now is turning this EU-Mercosur agreement into concrete outcomes, giving EU exporters the platform they need to seize new opportunities for trade, growth and jobs,” EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič said, adding: “Provisional application will allow us to begin delivering on that promise.”

The agreement liberalises trade flows between the EU and Mercosur countries, creating a free-trade area of more than 700 million people.

The Commission signed off on the deal and secured backing from EU member states despite strong opposition from EU farmers, who fear unfair competition from Mercosur imports.

But at the European Parliament, opponents secured a majority to refer the agreement to the Court of Justice of the European Union to assess its legality.

Pressed by supporters including Germany and Spain, which are seeking faster access to new markets amid rising geoeconomic tensions, the Commission opted for provisional application.

To proceed, it had to wait for at least one Mercosur country to ratify and notify the agreement before launching provisional implementation with that country. Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay have done so, while Paraguay ratified the deal last Tuesday and “is expected to send its notification soon,” the Commission said.

On Monday, the Commission sent a “verbal note” to Paraguay, the legal guardian of Mercosur treaties, completing the final procedural step.

“Provisional application ensures the removal of tariffs on certain products as of day one, creating predictable rules for trade and investment,” the Commission said.

“It will create more resilient and reliable supply chains, crucial in particular for the predictable flow of Critical Raw Materials.”

Gold’s reputation over the past year as the go-to refuge in a crisis is taking a battering as war rages and threatens to expand in the Middle East and financial markets buckle.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Spot gold plunged to a 2026 low near $4,100 in early trading on Monday before recovering sharply to above $4,400 after US President Donald Trump announced he was postponing military strikes against Iranian power plants for five days following “very good and productive conversations” with Tehran — a swing of around $300 in the space of hours.

The metal has still shed more than 20% since hitting a record high of $5,594.82 an ounce on 29 January.

Silver has lost nearly half its value since hitting an all-time high of $121.67 in January, in one of the more violent collapses in the precious metal’s modern history.

Spot silver was down 8.9% at $61.76 — a year-to-date low and almost half of its $117 level on 28 February, when the Iran war began.

The counterintuitive sell-off has rattled investors who piled into precious metals expecting them to hold firm.

The dollar dropped against the euro after Trump’s comments and traded around $1.1572 to the euro on Monday afternoon, while the pound was up at a rate of $1.3341. The yen traded at around ¥159.47 per dollar.

Oil shocks continue to reverberate

The main culprit is the oil shock. As crude surges past $100 a barrel, bond yields are climbing and the US dollar is strengthening, making precious metals far less attractive to investors bracing for higher interest rates.

The dollar has emerged as one of the clearest safe-haven winners, strengthening over 2% so far this month.

For a non-yielding asset like gold, that is a double blow.

The prospect of higher interest rates as a result of the war is also boosting government bonds among investors, at the expense of precious metals.

Yet seasoned observers urge caution before declaring the gold story over.

Russ Mould, investment director at AJ Bell, points out that gold is in the middle of only its third major bull run since 1971 and that the previous two also caused stomach-churning fluctuations.

“Neither interest rates staying higher for longer nor a stronger dollar may help the investment case for precious metals, but both the 1971-1980 and 2001-2010 bull runs saw several retreats which did not ultimately nullify or prevent major gains,” Mould said.

“So it may be too early to give up on gold just yet,” he continued.

During the first bull run, triggered by Richard Nixon’s decision to decouple the dollar from the gold standard in 1971, gold surged from $35 to a peak of $835 an ounce by January 1980, but not before enduring three mini bear markets and five corrections of 10% or more along the way.

The second run, which began in 2001 amid the wreckage of the dotcom bust and gathered pace through the 2008 financial crisis, was equally volatile, featuring two bear markets and another five double-digit corrections before gold peaked near $1,900 in 2011.

This third advance has been no smoother.

“A swoon of more than 20% caught some bulls off guard in 2022, as the world emerged from lockdowns, and 10%-plus corrections in each of 2016, 2018, 2020, 2021 and 2023 [gold peaks] warned that volatility was never far away,” Mould noted.

The question of dividends

The paradox at the heart of the current sell-off is that the very crisis that might once have sent investors flooding into gold is now working against it.

Rising oil prices fuel inflation fears, inflation fears fuel expectations of higher interest rates and higher rates make gold — which pays no dividend and costs money to hold — less appealing.

“Gold’s status as a haven may now be tarnished in the eyes of some,” Mould said, “as the precious metal is falling in price even as war roils the Middle East and financial markets alike.”

But not everyone is convinced the metal’s moment has passed.

The inflation and stagflation of the 1970s, partly triggered by the oil shocks of 1973 and 1979, ultimately made gold the standout portfolio pick of that decade.

A prolonged conflict that stretches government finances — pushing welfare costs up and tax revenues down, on top of surging defence spending — could yet revive that dynamic.

If central banks respond to recession with fresh rate cuts and quantitative easing, the case for gold as a store of value comes roaring back.

“The war in Iran and its effect on oil and gas prices is stoking fears of inflation and how that could force central banks to raise interest rates,” he concluded.

Asian stock markets saw major declines on Monday as gold futures dropped 8% and crude oil prices continued to climb amid heightened uncertainty in the Middle East.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

As the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz continues to choke global supply, benchmark US crude rose above $100 a barrel on Monday morning in Europe.

Brent crude, the international standard, went up to more than $113 a barrel. The price of Brent crude has zigzagged lately from about $70 per barrel before the war began to as high as $119.50.

European stock indexes opened with losses, with the FTSE in London losing 1.5%, the CAC-40 in Paris being down by 1.6%, and the DAX in Frankfurt dropping by 2% at the opening.

Earlier on Monday, the International Energy Agency warned that the global economy faces a “major, major threat” because of the Iran war and that at least 40 energy assets across nine countries were damaged.

Meanwhile, the de-escalation of the conflict is nowhere near in sight.

Trump warned over the weekend that the US would “obliterate” Iran’s power plants if it does not fully open the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours, prompting Tehran to say it would respond to any such strike with attacks on US and Israeli energy and infrastructure assets in the region.

“Trump’s ultimatum and Iran’s retaliatory warnings point to a widening conflict that keeps energy disruption and market volatility elevated, with no clear off-ramp in sight,” said Ng Jing Wen, analyst at Mizuho Bank in Singapore.

In Europe, the benchmark natural gas futures were trading above €60 per MWh at the market open.

This follows last week’s gains as escalating threats to Middle Eastern energy facilities heightened fears of deeper supply disruptions.

In Asia, stock markets were also significantly impacted by the uncertainty around the Middle East crisis, with Japan’s benchmark Nikkei 225 dropping 3.5%. In Taiwan, the Taiex shed 2.5%, South Korea’s Kospi dropped 6.5%, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng slipped 3.8% and the Shanghai Composite declined 3.6%.

Higher oil prices, which also shook stock markets on Friday, dashed hopes for a possible upcoming cut in interest rates by the Federal Reserve, analysts said. Before the war, traders were betting that the Fed would cut rates at least twice this year. Central banks in Europe, Japan and the United Kingdom also recently held their interest rates steady.

The S&P 500 fell 1.5% Friday to close its fourth straight losing week, its longest such streak in a year.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 443 points, or 1%, and the Nasdaq Composite tumbled 2%.

On Wall Street, roughly three out of every four stocks in the S&P 500 fell on Friday.

Stocks of smaller companies, which can feel the pinch of higher interest rates more than their bigger rivals, led the way lower. The Russell 2000 index of smaller stocks fell a market-leading 2.3%.

In the bond market, the yield on the 10-year Treasury finished last week with a jump to 4.38% Friday from 4.25% late Thursday and from just 3.97% before the war started.

The two-year Treasury yield, which more closely tracks expectations for what the Fed might do, rose to 3.88% from 3.79%.

In currency trading, the US dollar rose to 159.53 Japanese yen from 159.22 yen. The euro cost $1.1526, down from $1.1571.

When the United States and Israel launched joint strikes on Iran on February 28, the Strait of Hormuz—the narrow waterway through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil passes each day—effectively ceased to function as a shipping corridor. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps responded by warning off tanker traffic, and within days maritime transit had fallen to nearly zero. The consequences were immediate and severe: Brent crude has not dropped below the $100 threshold since March 13 and touched $119 on March 19 following Israeli strikes on Iran’s South Pars gasfield and retaliatory Iranian attacks on energy infrastructure in Qatar and the UAE. For Venezuela, a country sitting atop the world’s largest proven reserves but producing around 900,000 to one million barrels per day (a fraction of its historical capacity of over 3 million in the late 1990s) the disruption arrived at a peculiar moment. It was not a crisis of Venezuela’s making. But how Caracas responds to it may define the country’s energy trajectory for years to come.

On paper, the arithmetic is striking. Alejandro Grisanti, director of Ecoanalítica, estimates that Venezuela receives approximately $400 million in additional revenue for every extra dollar in the average crude price. This figure, at current price levels, represents a fiscal windfall without precedent in the post-Maduro transition. Venezuelan crude exports had already rebounded sharply in February to around 788,000 barrels per day (up from a depressed 383,000 bpd in January, when the post-Maduro-arrest disruption had frozen trade flows), with US refineries absorbing the majority of shipments directly through Chevron or energy intermediaries. Of course, production and exports are different things: Venezuela produces roughly one million bpd but consumes some 230,000 bpd domestically, meaning effective export capacity sits considerably below gross output.

The Hormuz disruption accelerated the export recovery dynamic: with Gulf supply stranded and Asian buyers scrambling for alternatives, Venezuelan crude became a more attractive proposition. Washington has responded in kind. On March 18, the US Treasury issued a broad license authorizing established American entities to conduct transactions with PDVSA directly, a landmark shift after years of near-total sanctions isolation, explicitly framed as a supply-side response to the Iran war. There are structural constraints baked into the relief: payments cannot flow directly to sanctioned Venezuelan entities but must pass through US-controlled accounts, and transactions involving Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, or designated Chinese entities remain prohibited. The US will allow the oil trade, but it will control the cash flow.

The production ceiling, however, remains a formidable obstacle, and not merely a financial one. Venezuela’s Orinoco Belt produces extra-heavy crude with an API gravity typically in the 8–16° range and high sulfur content, which cannot simply be blended into a market substitute for the medium-sour grades displacing from the Persian Gulf. To reach export markets, Orinoco crude must either pass through an upgrader—facilities like Petropiar, which converts it to a synthetic crude of around 26° API—or be diluted with imported naphtha or lighter crude to create exportable blends like Merey. This means Venezuelan barrels serve a specific refinery profile: predominantly the cooking-capable refineries along the US Gulf Coast, which are well-suited to process heavy, sulfurous feedstocks. They are not a drop-in replacement for Middle Eastern crude, but a complementary supply for a defined segment of global refining capacity.

The US military backstop, the reformed hydrocarbon law, and now the broad PDVSA sanctions relief have together reduced the perception of expropriation risk and policy reversal that kept capital at bay for two decades.

ExxonMobil, whose assets were expropriated twice under chavismo, announced it would send an evaluation team to Venezuela within weeks, with Senior Vice President Jack Williams acknowledging the company’s heavy oil expertise from Canadian operations in Kearl and Cold Lake. The caveat was pointed: “Today it’s uninvestable,” CEO Darren Woods had said in January, and Williams’ more cautious optimism reflects the institutional memory of a company burned twice.

Chevron and PDVSA have meanwhile agreed on preliminary terms to expand Petropiar into the adjacent Ayacucho 8 block of the Orinoco Belt, while Shell is in advanced talks to develop the Carito and Pirital fields in eastern Monagas. These are among the few areas that produce the light and medium crude needed as diluent and blendstock for Venezuela’s heavy exports. Delcy Rodríguez has projected fresh oil investments of $1.4 billion for the year under the amended hydrocarbons law. These are meaningful steps. But a preliminary deal and a production ramp are different things. Rystad Energy estimates that simply holding production flat at around 1.1 million bpd requires $53 billion in upstream investment over 15 years, and getting to 2 million bpd by 2032 would demand $8–9 billion per year in sustained capital.

What has shifted—materially and quickly—is market sentiment about Venezuela as an investable destination, and the trajectory is meaningfully positive. Dozens of US hedge funds, asset managers, and energy investors are organizing trips to Caracas in the coming weeks: Signum Global Advisors is running a two-day conference in Venezuela from March 22–24 with 55 participants, roughly half of whom are bondholders who own or have recently purchased Venezuelan government and PDVSA debt (both in default since 2017).

Separate delegations invited by Trans-National Research and other groups are arriving, with agendas featuring meetings with Rodríguez and PDVSA CEO Héctor Obregón. The interest marks a sharp break from the isolation of the Maduro years. Country risk, while still elevated in absolute terms, has been repriced substantially since January: the US military backstop, the reformed hydrocarbon law, and now the broad PDVSA sanctions relief have together reduced the perception of expropriation risk and policy reversal that kept capital at bay for two decades.

Venezuela’s challenge is to use this window of geopolitical necessity to lock in investment commitments, debt restructuring negotiations, and production agreements that survive the normalization of oil markets.

What investors are now stress-testing is no longer whether Venezuela is open for business, but whether the legal and institutional architecture is durable enough to support long-horizon commitments. As analysts at Debatesiesa have noted in examining Venezuelan financial markets, sentiment can shift on headlines, but binding investment decisions require structural reforms and credible enforcement mechanisms. The framework is improving; the question is whether it improves fast enough, and on a stable enough trajectory, to convert this geopolitical moment into a genuine investment cycle.

The deeper question the Hormuz crisis forces is one of timing and durability. Oil prices are now trading above $110 per barrel and analysts at Wood Mackenzie and Rystad are no longer dismissing scenarios above $150 while the conflict shows no sign of imminent resolution, with Pete Hegseth signaling the “largest strike package yet” against Iran on March 19. The EIA, in its latest forecast issued prior to these newest escalations, projected Brent to remain above $95 through the next two months before falling below $80 in the third quarter of 2026 if supply flows gradually normalize. Whether that normalization materializes is the variable on which everything else depends. Venezuela’s challenge is not simply to capture today’s price premium, but to use this window of geopolitical necessity to lock in investment commitments, debt restructuring negotiations, and production agreements that survive the normalization of oil markets.

The country has rarely faced a more favorable confluence of factors: surging global demand for its barrels, a reformed legal framework for private investment, an unprecedented degree of US political and financial backing, and prices that make otherwise marginal projects viable. Whether Caracas—and the Rodríguez administration in particular—has the institutional bandwidth to convert a crisis into structural recovery, rather than another cycle of windfall and waste, is the defining question of Venezuela’s energy sector in 2026.

Published on
19/03/2026 – 10:44 GMT+1

The European Parliament’s trade committee agreed Thursday to cut EU tariffs on US goods to zero, as set out under the EU–US agreement struck in July 2025 after multiple delays over tensions with the Trump administration.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

EU Lawmakers had resisted for weeks implementing the deal signed by EU Commission’s President Ursula von der Leyen and US President Donald Trump last summer, following threats over Greenland and fresh tariffs imposed by Washington on EU goods after a pivotal February ruling by the US Supreme Court ruled illegal the 2025 US tariffs.

On Thursday, the committee adopted a legislation by 29 votes in favour, paving the way to eliminate EU duties on most US industrial goods as agreed in the Turnberry deal.

The lopsided agreement, clinched after weeks of trade tensions triggered by the White House’s nationalist trade agenda, imposes 15% US tariffs on EU goods while the bloc agreed to scrap its own duties and ramp up investment in the US.

Negotiation with capitals

Thursday’s vote opens the door to full approval by the European Parliament. However, adoption may slip to April or May as EU lawmakers still need to negotiate implementing legislation with EU member states.

Amendments introduced by MEPs could complicate talks with capitals, including a “sunset” clause that would reinstate EU tariffs after 18 months if the agreement is not renewed, and a so-called “sunrise clause” making tariff cuts conditional on Washington meeting its commitments.

Lawmakers unfroze the deal on Tuesday following US pressure and calls from the European Commission to move ahead.

They had sought clarity after the White House imposed fresh duties following the ruling of US top judges. New investigations into EU goods launched last week by Washington also raised concerns among MEPs, who called for predictability for European businesses.

US officials, meanwhile, have grown increasingly impatient after repeatedly assuring EU counterparts they would stick to the deal, which also spares sectors such as EU aerospace, if the bloc does the same.

“EU tariffs on US goods haven’t changed,” U.S. ambassador to the EU Andrew Puzder said on X on Tuesday, adding: “We understand that the EU must follow its process. But we’re hopeful that, after 6 and a half months, the time has come – and we’ve respectfully requested that – the EU finalize the deal so we can mutually unlock the potential for positive collaboration – for the betterment of our economies and our joint security.”

Published on 18/03/2026 – 16:20 GMT+1•Updated
16:25

Brent crude oil prices reached $110 a barrel on Wednesday afternoon, after Iranian state media reported that part of the South Pars gas field, the largest plant in Iran, and the Asaluyeh oil facility were struck by Israel.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Moreover, the US oil benchmark WTI also rose and is trading at $98 a barrel at the time of writing.

In response to the latest Israeli attacks, the IRGC announced that some Gulf energy sites are once again “legitimate targets”.

The prospect of escalation and prolongation of the conflict in the Middle East, resulting in further destruction of energy infrastructure, and consequently disruption to global markets, has sent oil prices higher once again.

The climb occurs despite other positive news that would normally have a dampening effect on energy markets.

Saudi Arabia confirmed on Wednesday that its biggest oil refinery, Ras Tanura, restarted operations on 13 March.

Additionally, the Trump administration officially announced a 60-day waiver of the Jones Act, a century-old maritime law that restricts the movement of cargo between US ports to vessels that are American-built, American-owned, American-flagged and crewed.

However, in the face of increased tensions and more attacks on oil infrastructure, these potentially mitigating developments have not had any effect in taming prices.

Trump administration confirms Jones Act waiver

The White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, confirmed the Trump administration’s decision to issue a 60-day waiver of the Jones Act.

The measure lifts the restriction on the movement of cargo between US ports, allowing foreign tankers temporarily and cheaply to transport vital resources such as oil, gas and fertilisers along the US coastline.

In a post on X on Wednesday, Leavitt explained that the decision is “just another step to mitigate the short-term disruptions to the oil market as the US military continues meeting the objectives of Operation Epic Fury.”

The last Jones Act waiver was issued in October 2022 for a tanker supplying Puerto Rico after Hurricane Fiona.

Before that, the Biden administration temporarily eased the law in 2021 for refiner Valero Energy, after a cyberattack crippled a major East Coast fuel pipeline.

Trump renews pressure on allies to secure the Strait of Hormuz

In a separate development, US President Donald Trump has renewed pressure on allies to join a naval escort mission in order to secure the Strait of Hormuz and normalise the circulation of vessels in the region.

In a post on Truth Social, President Trump argued that allied countries need to use the Strait of Hormuz while the US does not, and warned that they could be left managing it on their own in the aftermath of the war.

Since President Trump’s original request, no firm commitments have emerged, but on Monday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the White House plans to announce as early as this week that multiple countries have agreed to join the escort mission.

The report also stated that officials are still deliberating whether such an operation would start before or after the war ends.

After meeting in Brussels, EU foreign ministers discussed extending the bloc’s Aspides naval mission to the Strait of Hormuz, but ultimately declined to participate.

Eighteen days into the war in Iran, and the scorecard for global equity markets makes for uncomfortable reading.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

European benchmark indices have shed around 7% since hostilities began — the Euro STOXX 50 down 6.5%, Germany’s DAX off 7%, France’s CAC 40 down 7.2%, and Italy’s FTSE MIB lower by 6.4% — dwarfing the more modest 2.5% decline in the US S&P 500, which benefits from America’s status as the world’s largest oil producer and its relative insulation from the energy shock.

Yet the headline numbers tell only half the story.

Beneath the surface, an extraordinary divide has opened up — between European companies that thrive on expensive energy, and those being crushed by it.

The energy shock reshaping the continent

The conflict’s most immediate economic consequence has been a seismic repricing of energy.

Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz — through which 20% of the world’s petroleum flows — caused Brent crude to surge from around $70 to nearly $120 per barrel within days.

As of Tuesday, Brent sits at approximately $105, a 42% rally from pre-war levels.

In an attempt to cap the oil price surge, the International Energy Agency coordinated a historic intervention.

More than 30 nations in Europe, North America, and northeast Asia agreed to release a combined 400 million barrels of oil from emergency reserves — the largest such action in the IEA’s 50-year history.

Yet the oil market has sent a clear signal that even this enormous release is nowhere near enough to address the unprecedented supply disruption, with crude prices surging more than 17% since the announcement.

Natural gas has been hit even harder. The Dutch TTF benchmark — Europe’s most important gas price reference — has surged 60% to €52 per megawatt-hour.

In a note this week, Goldman Sachs energy analyst Samantha Dart warned this week that approximately 80 million tonnes per annum of LNG supply — 19% of the global total — is currently offline following the Strait’s disruption and the shutdown of Qatar’s LNG production facilities.

Her team maintains a TTF forecast of €63/MWh for the second quarter of 2026, warning that tightening European physical balances could push prices into the gas-to-oil switching range before the conflict resolves.

The winners: Energy, renewables and fertilizer

The clearest beneficiaries have been European oil and gas producers, whose revenues move in lockstep with the commodity the war has repriced so dramatically.

Norwegian energy giant Equinor has surged 23.7% since the start of the month, as investors pile into one of the continent’s largest oil and gas producers with substantial assets well outside the conflict zone.

Fellow Norwegian producer Vår Energi is up 19.9%, while Aker BP has gained 17.1%. Italy’s Eni is up 14.7%, and Portugal’s Galp Energia has added 13.6%.

The most striking gains, however, have come from an unexpected corner: biofuels.

German renewable fuels producer Verbio SE has shot up 30.4%, and Finland’s Neste Oyj — the world’s largest producer of renewable diesel — has gained 28.1%.

As conventional fossil fuels become more expensive and supply chains more precarious, energy alternatives become dramatically more attractive to both buyers and investors.

German gas utility Uniper SE, which has spent recent years diversifying away from Russian supply, has rallied 19.1%.

The fertiliser sector has also attracted significant gains, with K+S rising 15.3% and Yara International rising 15.0%.

The moves reflect a commodity supply crisis hiding in plain sight: around one third of global seaborne fertiliser trade — roughly 16 million tonnes — passes through the Strait of Hormuz, including 43% of seaborne urea exports, 44% of sulphur, and over a quarter of traded ammonia.

The losers: Steel, airlines and construction

On the other side of the ledger, the losses have been equally dramatic. Energy-intensive industries and businesses exposed to higher costs with little pricing power have been savaged.

Airlines have taken some of the heaviest punishment. Wizz Air — the Budapest-based low-cost carrier with heavy exposure to Central and Eastern European routes — has collapsed 31.2%.

Air France-KLM has lost 22.1% and easyJet has dropped 21.8%. All three face the same brutal arithmetic: jet fuel costs have surged, hedging programmes offer only partial and temporary protection, and there is limited ability to pass costs on to passengers quickly enough to protect earnings.

Steel producers have been hit with similar force. Salzgitter has fallen 27.9%, thyssenkrupp is down 27.3%, and ArcelorMittal has shed 19.1%, joined by stainless steel specialist Aperam, which has dropped 24.5%.

Steel production ranks among the most energy-intensive industrial processes on earth, and mills operating on thin margins face an immediate profitability crisis when gas prices surge 60% in such a short period.

Spanish engineering contractor Técnicas Reunidas has dropped 23.7%, a casualty of its deep exposure to Middle Eastern energy infrastructure projects now thrown into uncertainty by the conflict.

Construction group Webuild has fallen 26.6%, reflecting broader fears that an energy-driven slowdown will freeze infrastructure investment across Europe’s most exposed economies.

Mining company Hochschild rounds out the list, down 21%, rising energy costs compress margins and risk appetite for smaller extractive names evaporates.

Europe enters this crisis in a structurally vulnerable position.

Despite having dramatically reduced its dependence on Russian pipeline gas since the invasion of Ukraine, the continent remains acutely sensitive to energy supply disruptions — and gas storage levels heading into 2026 offer less of a buffer than in prior years.

The events that transpired in Caracas on January 3rd drew global attention to the future of Venezuela’s well-known hydrocarbon industry, while another strategic facet of the country´s economy has remained largely unnoticed: mining. 

Historically overshadowed by the sheer scale of Venezuela’s oil-based economy, the country’s mines became an increasingly important source of revenue as sanctions closed the spigot on petrodollars during the Maduro years.

Alongside the vast reserves of hydrocarbons, the country’s privileged geological endowment covers extensive metal and mineral deposits. Concentrated largely in the Guyanese Shield in the southeast of the country, these reserves include some of the region’s largest gold reserves, extensive iron ore deposits, and a range of minerals that have been labelled as critical for the global energy transition by actors like the European Union. 

Despite its vast mineral wealth, Venezuela’s mining sector remains poorly governed. Reforming it will be essential to rebuilding a stable republic.

The harsh reality is that the mining sector in Venezuela is currently a cesspool of some of the most atrocious activities conducted by the regime in the last decade, from human trafficking to international guerrillas like the Colombian Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN) controlling illegal mining operations that cause considerable environmental damage and serve to finance terrorist acts abroad. The fact remains that if these actors continue to be a force in the sector, the hopes of establishing a strong and robust Venezuelan economy will be slashed before they even get off the ground. 

All conversations start with the regime’s establishment of the infamous Orinoco Mining Arc in 2016. This Zona de Desarrollo Estratégico Minero Nacional contains an estimated 7,000 tonnes of gold, alongside millions (literally millions) of tonnes of iron ore and bauxite, as well as dozens of other high value resources. In theory, it is managed by the State and the armed forces. In practice, investigations by Human Rights Watch, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the International Crisis Group, and research projects such as SOS Orinoco consistently describe it as a criminal economy dominated by irregular armed groups, through which the Venezuelan regime captures significant revenue from gold extraction and international sales. 

It’s important to mention that three important developments have happened in recent days. The first is that on March 9th 2026, the National Assembly in Venezuela approved the first draft of a new mining reform law. Supported by the Rodríguez-led executive, the bill presents the first significant set of changes to the Venezuelan mining law that has been in full effect since 1999, since the gold reform in 2015. Among the most important aspects of the bill are the extension of concessions from 20 to 30 years, the welcoming of both national and international companies to directly develop projects in Venezuela, and the introduction of an “international arbitration program”.

When the strong control of a mafia-like regime is combined with a lack of true judicial safeguards for foreign investment in the country, most of the reliable foreign investors will be scared away.

This law comes following two key visits from high-ranking Trump administration officials. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum had discussed Venezuela’s potential as a reliable source of strategic minerals. And previously, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said the same about oil. Today came the announcement from Swiss commodity trading giant Trafigura, where they are committing with Minerven to help build a program for the responsible sourcing of Venezuelan gold.

Rebuilding Venezuela’s mining ecosystem will be an uphill battle that will require more than a few high-level visits, a tenuous attempt at legal reform, or a single agreement from a renowned international trader. The shadow mining economy is a key issue in the consolidation of a future Venezuelan republic that aims towards a stable political and economic development. This will in turn place some pressure on Delcy Rodríguez and the regime’s inner circle to address a system that has been successful under their watch. Without a doubt, there’s a big question mark over their willingness to dismantle one of its main cash cows, but this should remain a key issue in discussions over Venezuela’s future.

But just cleansing the system is not nearly enough to revitalize the sector. Because for Venezuela to become a key exporter of gold, iron and critical materials, international standards must be adopted. That is why Venezuela must create a true pathway for foreign investment to become an engine for the sector. One of the main concerns is just how much control the state exerts over the mining system, which can be argued to be even larger than the one seen in the energy industry. Three key State-owned companies “officially” control most of the mining operations in Venezuela: Corporación Venezolana de Minería (CVM), Corporación Venezolana de Guayana (CVG) and Minerven.

The problem is not the fact that State-owned companies operate in the country, but rather that the State that operates them is basically a criminal organization. When the strong control of a mafia-like regime is combined with a lack of true judicial safeguards for foreign investment in the country, most of the reliable foreign investors will be scared away. The ones who can start to create pathways to reintroduce Venezuela into the broader global economy, and transform the country into a crucial source of minerals. 

The main reason why foreign direct investment must drive the growth patterns is due to the fact that international operators can bring much needed expertise and technical know-how to develop stable mining projects across the region. It is important to note that for Venezuela to eventually meet high operational, environmental and safety standards, some time must pass. Many of these international companies have vast experience operating in less than ideal scenarios in countries like Angola or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and they have managed to meet the minimum benchmarks to sell on Western markets. Thinking that in only a couple of years Venezuela will meet the same standards as minerals sourced from Europe, Canada or Australia is plain wishful thinking. For the industry to take off, production should start, as soon as viable, and as soon as a realistic negotiation and hopefully a government change can happen.

In this vein, the main Western drivers of foreign investment into mining globally, Canada and Australia, have adopted strict technical instruments like the NI 43-101 and JORC following mining scandals like BRE-X in the late 1990s. These frameworks are meant to prove the reliability standards to even invest in mining companies both locally and abroad. These regulations, which are widely accepted interchangeably worldwide, have created considerable scrutiny for the international mining sector, and the ones who can reliably bring these instruments into Venezuela are Western actors who have included them into their internal practices. If international actors bring these in, they can become a major first step in establishing the global standards required for projects in Venezuela. An important facet of this scenario is how retribution for past seizures of assets from companies like Crystallex International and Rusoro Mining will factor into the negotiations into the future of the Venezuelan mining industry.

The Venezuelan armed forces must commit to cooperating with international companies, switch their allegiances, and start a pushback against the criminal structures across the territory.

Thinking that high international standards will be adopted quickly might be too idealistic, but future negotiations in the country should include three key elements. First, territorial control must eventually be regained. Waiting to purge the Arco Minero before starting full production would be unrealistic, as it will require a comprehensive, and time-consuming security strategy. In this case, and considering that international investors will most likely bring in their own private security, there should be a commitment from the high command of the Venezuelan armed forces to cooperate with these companies, switch their allegiances, and start a pushback against the criminal structures across the territory.

Furthermore, international observers should be welcomed into the country with open arms to provide both expertise and external oversight with a true “punitive” capacity to ensure the transparency of the process. While this is happening, the third standard will come naturally, which is the systematic integration of international compliance levels. 

These two steps can eventually lead future governments in the country to invest in the creation of internal independent agencies that oversee the entire process, which will hopefully be embedded into the broader State apparatus that will be revamped in the coming years. 

The reality is that the current situation in Venezuela presents an interesting path towards the reactivation of the mining industry. The sector will be crucial, and the road to restart will be long. As more than a compromise between an unreliable government partner in Delcy Rodríguez and her cadre of officials, and the global hegemon, the industry is in desperate need of foreign investment and a firm commitment from international operators to start implementing the world-class standards. Because eventually, these players will be the ones to push for the creation of viable frameworks during the rebuilding of the Venezuelan Republic.

EU lawmakers in Brussels are worried that the bloc is drifting into the crosshairs of US domestic politics, as the White House launched new trade investigations into EU goods accusing the European Union is “implementing close to zero” of trade commitments.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Next week could prove decisive for the EU–US trade deal struck last summer.

Washington has stepped up pressure on the EU in recent days to implement the agreement cut last summer cut between the head of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and President Donald Trump, tripling tariffs on the EU.

Still, MEPs have kept the implementation process, which also includes investment pledges from the Europeans in the US, frozen, seeking clarity after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in February that US tariffs imposed in 2025 were illegal.

The fate of the deal remains uncertain after the White House launched new investigations into EU products this week that could lead to tariffs exceeding the 15% ceiling agreed under the pact.

“It is domestic politics and the worst-case scenario has happened: we got involved,” Croatian MEP Željana Zovko, lead negotiator for the European People’s Party, told Euronews.

She added: “We were waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision but now of course this administration will do its utmost to do it its own way.”

In the days following the court’s ruling, the US administration has looked for new legal grounds for tariffs and invoked Section 122 to impose fresh duties of 10% on EU goods, on top of the 4.8% tariffs already in place under most-favored nation regime.

The provision allows temporary duties for a maximum of 150 days, after which the US Congress would need to agree an extension. The Supreme Court suggested in its initial ruling that the President had exceeded his powers under emergency grounds.

As Washington looks for a way to make the tariff salvo permanent, it is also increasing the pressure on allies by opening new investigations into trading partners including the EU over alleged unfair trade practices. China and India were also targeted.

The probes could pave the way for tariffs above the 15% ceiling agreed in the deal struck in July 2025 by Ursula von der Leyen and Donald Trump in Turnberry, Scotland.

Next week will be pivotal for the EU-US deal

“Now uncertainty is increasing even more for our businesses,” Zovko said.

Since the court ruling, the EU has sought clarity from Washington on whether the Turnberry agreement signed last year still stands or has been broken.

US officials assured EU trade chief Maroš Šefčovič they would stick to the deal, though they have not detailed how the 10% tariffs after the court ruling will be replaced in the long-term. In return, the US expects the EU to implement the agreement fully and quickly.

US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer raised the temperature on Wednesday, lashing at the Europeans on the basis that “the EU has done approximately zero percent of what they were supposed to do for their trade deal with us.”

This week’s investigations should be taken seriously, German MEP Bernd Lange (S&D) told Euronews, despite the erratic moves by the US administration since the court ruling.

“Section 301 will allow the US to differentiate between countries and therefore add pressure to each of them,” he said.

Next week could be pivotal for the EU–US trade deal.

Italian MEP Brando Benifei (S&D) will travel to Washington hoping to meet Greer. He may be joined by Lange, the chair of the EU trade committee, on Monday although a decision has not been made yet.

The trip comes as negotiators in the European Parliament must decide whether to resume work on the agreement or postpone the vote once more. A vote is required to cut EU duties on US goods to zero, as foreseen in the Turnberry deal.

But political groups remain divided.

“When I read what the socialists are saying, I’m losing hope that we will have a vote, despite reassurance given by Iratxe García Pérez [Spanish MEP, chair of the S&D] and Bernd Lange,” a source at the EPP told Euronews.

Benifei said the EU needs a clear political signal from Washington that it will stick to the deal, otherwise “there is no way we can vote on the file.”

The index provider reviews the S&P 500 every quarter using rigorous criteria on market capitalisation, profitability, liquidity and sector balance to ensure it reflects the largest and most representative top 500 US companies.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The latest update will bring Vertiv Holdings, Lumentum Holdings, Coherent Corp. and EchoStar Corporation into the index.

They replace Match Group, Molina Healthcare, Lamb Weston Holdings and Paycom Software, with the changes taking effect before the market opens on Monday 23 March.

With trillions of dollars in assets tracking the S&P 500, the rebalance typically prompts buying from passive funds, often providing a short-term lift to new members.

Shortly after the S&P Global announcement, on Friday 6 March, all four companies’ shares rose on average 8% as investors began anticipating the increased flow.

Three out of the four incoming firms supply critical infrastructure for the AI boom, from power and cooling systems to high-speed optical components.

According to S&P Global, the changes show how sustained AI investment has become a structural force in the market, to the point that it is reshaping the index composition.

Big Tech is guiding for roughly €600bn in AI spending this year alone.

Vertiv

Vertiv Holdings specialises in critical digital infrastructure, offering power management, thermal management and modular systems that support high-density computing in data centres.

The company has seen explosive demand for liquid cooling and high-power solutions as AI workloads drive energy consumption far beyond conventional levels.

According to Vertiv’s fourth quarter 2025 earnings, released in February, organic orders grew 252% year-on-year in the final quarter, pushing its backlog to $15bn (€13bn) –– a 109% rise from the previous year.

The book-to-bill ratio reached approximately 2.9 times and full-year 2026 guidance points to organic sales growth of 27% to 29%, indicating very strong requisition.

The firm’s strong performance reflects its central role in enabling the hyperscalers’ expansion of AI infrastructure.

Inclusion in the S&P 500 is expected to increase visibility and liquidity through passive fund inflows. This milestone underscores Vertiv’s evolution into a key enabler of the physical infrastructure powering AI growth.

Lumentum

Lumentum Holdings develops advanced optical components, lasers and transceivers that deliver the ultra-high-speed connectivity required inside data centres and across communications networks.

Its products are essential for handling the massive bandwidth demands of AI model training and inference.

In early March, Nvidia announced a multi-year strategic partnership with Lumentum that includes a $2bn (€1.7bn) investment to expand capacity, advance US-based manufacturing and deepen research and development collaborations.

This partnership came alongside multibillion-dollar purchase commitments for advanced laser components.

The S&P 500 addition elevates the profile of optical technologies as a foundational layer in next-generation AI infrastructure.

For Lumentum, the move reinforces its position as a critical supplier in the race to scale AI systems efficiently and at unprecedented speeds.

Coherent

Coherent Corp. focuses on photonics and laser technologies, with a strong emphasis on silicon photonics and high-speed optical interconnects designed for large-scale AI computing clusters.

The company has repositioned its portfolio to tackle latency and power-efficiency challenges in hyperscale environments.

Similar to Lumentum, the company recently disclosed a parallel strategic partnership with Nvidia, also including a $2bn (€1.7bn) investment and multibillion-dollar purchase commitments for advanced optics.

The collaboration targets technologies vital for future data centre architectures and supports expanding US manufacturing.

The S&P 500 inclusion recognises Coherent’s transformation and the structural demand from global AI build-outs.

Greater institutional interest and enhanced liquidity are widely expected once the rebalance takes effect. This development cements the company’s role as an indispensable partner in the infrastructure underpinning rapid advances in AI.

EchoStar

EchoStar Corporation is the outlier of the group as it is the only company being added to the S&P 500 that is not directly tied to the expansion of AI infrastructure.

The firm delivers satellite communications, video entertainment and broadband services, primarily through its DISH network operations.

The addition brings dedicated exposure to the communications sector, balancing the heavy tilt toward AI infrastructure providers in this quarterly update.

In line with its fellow entrants, EchoStar has delivered triple-digit gains over the past year, reflecting resilience in the telecom space amid broader technology shifts.

The move complements the data centre focus of the other new companies and underscores how communications continues to shape the composition of the US’ flagship equity index.

The quarterly adjustments follow a pattern of the S&P 500 evolving alongside technological shifts. While passive inflows deliver an immediate boost, the longer-term impact lies in better alignment with the sectors driving the modern economy.

The global energy landscape is facing its most volatile period in decades following the US-Israeli strikes against Iran on 28 February that triggered a wider and potentially prolonged conflict in the Middle East.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

What began as a targeted military operation has rapidly escalated into a direct confrontation with global economic implications.

Based on claims by Iranian state media and regional reports, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has ostensibly adopted a strategy of “energy blackmail” to leverage the international community into pressuring the US and Israel to cease its attacks.

The $200 per oil barrel threat was first articulated shortly after the conflict began.

On Sunday 1 March, a senior IRGC spokesperson warned that if “cowardly anti-human actions” continued, the world should prepare for a massive price surge, even as high as $200 per oil barrel.

This rhetoric has since become a central pillar of Tehran’s messaging.

As recently as this Wednesday, Ebrahim Zolfaqari, the spokesperson for Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya military command headquarters, told state media: “Get ready for the oil barrel to be at $200, because the oil price depends on the regional security which you have destabilised.”

Iran’s tactical disruption

The IRGC’s current strategy relies on “internationalising” the cost of the conflict.

By disrupting the flow of nearly 20% of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) through the Strait of Hormuz, Iran aims to drag the global economy into the fray.

This is why the IRGC has targeted vessels from neutral nations, including ships sailing under Thai, Japanese and Marshall Islands flags, among others.

According to energy analysts, this disruption is designed to create domestic political pressure within Western nations, to in turn force the US and Israel to pull back on military action in exchange for energy stability.

By striking countries that have not attacked them directly, Tehran is signaling that no maritime trade is safe as long as the strikes on its soil continue.

The main vector of this strategy is precisely the disruption of energy markets, an element Iran can influence directly through its geographical advantage.

A history of oil price shocks

While $200 per barrel sounds astronomical, oil has approached similar levels in the past when adjusted for inflation.

The highest nominal price ever recorded was around $147 in 2008, driven by peak oil fears and rampant speculation just before the global financial crisis. When adjusted for 2026 inflation, that 2008 peak represents roughly $211 per barrel.

Previous major shocks, such as the 1973-74 Arab Oil Embargo and the 1979 Iranian Revolution, saw prices quadruple and double respectively from pre-crisis levels.

In 1980, prices hit a nominal peak of about $39.50, which would be approximately $160 in today’s terms.

However, the current crisis involves a total physical blockade of one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoint, increasing the risk of a price “moonshot”.

Market response and reserves

At the time of writing, Brent crude is trading just above $100 per barrel, a sharp increase from the $60 range seen in mid-February before the Iran war began.

The International Energy Agency has attempted to stabilise the market by orchestrating the largest-ever coordinated release of strategic reserves, but the continuation of Iranian strikes agaisnt oil infrastructure and tankers has largely neutralised the effort.

With insurance providers cancelling war-risk coverage and shipping companies redirecting fleets, the market remains in a state of high anxiety.

If the blockade on the Strait of Hormuz persists, the $200 figure may shift from a political threat to an increasingly likely scenario.

In a recent report, Oxford Economics identified $140 per barrel as the threshold at which the global economy tips into mild recession, reducing world GDP by 0.7% by year-end and pushing the UK, the Eurozone and Japan into contraction.

The EU’s six largest economies are urging Brussels to accelerate the long-awaited integration of capital markets to “strengthen Europe’s growth potential”, according to a letter sent on Tuesday to the Eurogroup boss and several EU commissioners.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The finance ministers of France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain say that making tangible progress on the rebranded “Savings and Investment Union” has become an “urgent necessity,” pledging to push “this important project forward”, in a letter addressed to EU economy chief Valdis Dombrovskis and Eurogroup President.

“Deeper and more integrated capital markets would strengthen Europe’s growth potential, enhance its economic sovereignty and provide a stronger foundation for financing common priorities,” the letter said.

In particular, the ministers call on EU institutions to reach an agreement among member states by summer on one of the key elements of the capital markets integration agenda: the Market Integration and Supervision Package (MISP).

The MISP is a set of legislative proposals by the European Commission aimed at strengthening the supervision of financial market infrastructures across the bloc and improving how they operate.

“A central purpose of the package is to remove national barriers and to improve cross border distribution of investment funds, so investors have better access to the EU capital markets and companies benefit from deeper pools of capital”, the letter says.

The six countries also ask the EU to advance its digital payments agenda, specifically by promoting private pan-European payment networks that can compete with US-based Visa and Mastercard, and by accelerating the adoption of the digital euro.

Agreement by the summer

Capital markets allow companies and governments to raise funds by selling assets such as shares or bonds to investors.

To strengthen and integrate these markets across the EU, the European Commission has proposed a series of legislative measures under the Savings and Investment Union package.

In recent months, EU countries and institutions have signalled a more ambitious goal, aiming for an agreement among co-legislators on most of the SIU legislation by June.

However, EU countries are not fully aligned on the technical aspects of capital markets integration, causing delays to the broader strategic agenda.

Another key legislative proposal is the revisions of the securitisation framework, which are EU rules introduced in 2019 with the objective of ensuring safer market practices, to avoid other financial crisis such as the 2008 global shock.

The revision, which aims to simplify certain requirements and reduce high operational costs, is to be approved by autumn 2026, according to signatories.

Digital payments

The six EU countries also support the development of additional pan-European private digital payment solutions, viewed as a key pillar of the EU’s strategic autonomy, since most digital payments are currently processed through US-based infrastructures.

According to 2025 European Central Bank data, Mastercard and Visa account for 61% of card payments and nearly 100% of cross-border ones.

In this context, the six countries are also calling for an accelerated rollout of a public digital payment solution: the digital euro. Currently under negotiation, it would be an electronic form of cash issued by the European Central Bank, serving as an additional payment option alongside cash and bank-issued cards.

The project is facing significant delays in the European Parliament. In particular, the leading rapporteur on the file, the Spanish centre-right MEP Fernando Navarrete, is pushing to reduce the scope of the digital euro to offline payments only, in order to avoid competing with other private infrastructure, such as Visa and Mastercard.

“We push for swift conclusions of the legislative process of the digital euro and we invite the European Parliament to follow the Council’s approach to establish the digital euro (in both its online and offline modalities) as a comprehensive, interoperable and sovereign European payment solution for European citizens”, the six countries wrote in the letter.

The co-legislators initially aimed for full adoption of the digital euro by the end of 2026. However, due to delays in the parliament, the six countries have not set a specific adoption deadline.

Brent futures rose sharply on Thursday, spiking above $100 before easing slightly but remaining higher than levels seen earlier in the week as markets stay incredibly volatile.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

This comes despite an unprecedented decision by the 32-member International Energy Agency (IEA) on Wednesday to release a record 400 million barrels to calm markets, more than double the volume released after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Following the IEA decision, Iran stepped up its offensive campaign and launched strikes on Omani oil storage facilities at the Salalah port and multiple ships in and near the Strait of Hormuz, sending prices higher again.

Record coordinated release of reserves

The US alone is contributing 172 million barrels. Germany, France and Italy also confirmed they would tap their stocks, while Japan said it would begin releases next Monday.

IEA executive director Fatih Birol described the current Iran-related crisis as an “oil market challenge unprecedented in scale”, adding that the collective response reflected “strong solidarity” in defence of global energy security.

Exports of crude and refined products from the region have dropped to 10-15% of pre-war levels, with the Strait of Hormuz, which normally carries one-fifth of the world’s oil, effectively closed to the large majority of tankers.

Iran’s attacks blunt expected price relief

The new Iranian strikes came at lightning speed, directly after the IEA announcement.

Drones targeted fuel storage tanks and silos at Oman’s Salalah port, igniting fires that Omani authorities were still working to contain late on Wednesday.

British maritime security firm Ambrey confirmed damage to the facilities, while Danish shipping giant Maersk temporarily halted port operations.

Omani officials stressed there had been “no disruption to the continuity of oil supplies or petroleum derivatives” inside the country itself, while Iranian state media reported that President Pezeshkian had assured Oman’s sultan the incident would be investigated.

At the same time, six vessels were struck in the Gulf and Strait of Hormuz.

Among the reports, there was confirmation of a projectile hitting a container ship near the UAE and strikes on two tankers in Iraqi waters.

UK Maritime Trade Operations, and other monitoring groups, attributed the incidents to Iranian forces or proxies.

These developments, occurring the very day of the reserves release, appear to have smothered the anticipated calming effect on prices.

As of Thursday, the number of ships struck in the region since the beginning of the conflict rose to at least sixteen.

Record release may signal deeper market concerns

Some analysts note that the sheer volume of the release could itself be interpreted negatively. Previous coordinated actions never exceeded 183 million barrels.

The scale of the release suggests importing nations already view the disruption as the most severe and long-lasting in decades.

Even worse, a record release may not be enough.

Speaking to Euronews, Warren Patterson, Head of Commodities Strategy at ING, was blunt in his assessment.

“A record 400 million barrel release from emergency reserves is helpful, but it’s not going to go very far to offset the roughly 15 million daily supply currently disrupted.”

Patterson also added that “the only solution that will bring oil prices down on a sustained basis is getting oil flowing through the Strait of Hormuz again.”

Oxford Economics echoes this concern, warning that “the economic effect of higher energy costs rises as the oil price increases,” in a report that seemingly indicates the crisis is far from over and we have yet to feel the compounding effect of the initial shock.

Russian sanctions relief remains off the table

With the reserve release failing to calm prices, attention has turned to Russian oil as a potential source of additional supply.

The US Treasury last week granted Indian refiners a 30-day waiver to purchase Russian crude from vessels already stranded at sea, though the measure expires on 4 April and deliberately excludes new shipments.

Following the G7 emergency discussions on Wednesday, French President Emmanuel Macron stated that the group had agreed “the situation does not justify lifting any sanctions” on Russia, emphasising the need to increase global production instead.

The contrast between Washington’s narrow waiver and the G7’s firm collective position leaves little prospect of sanctions relief acting as a meaningful pressure valve, a view shared by analysts.

“Any sanction relief for Russia would see some marginal supply increases, but again not enough, with Russia’s oil output having held up well in recent years despite sanctions,” Warren Patterson of ING told Euronews.

$140-$150 oil barrel possible if conflict is prolonged

Should tensions persist, analysts warn prices could climb substantially higher.

Oxford Economics identifies $140 per barrel as the threshold at which the global economy tips into mild recession, reducing world GDP by 0.7% by year-end and pushing the UK, the Eurozone and Japan into contraction.

The managing director of the IMF, Kristalina Georgieva, also stated that every 10% increase in oil prices, provided they persist for most of the year, will push up global inflation by 0.4% and reduce worldwide economic output by as much as 0.2%.

“The risk is stark,” Patterson warned. “It’s only a matter of time before we see oil prices hitting fresh record highs if the conflict is not swiftly and decisively resolved.”

The IEA’s intervention has provided a temporary buffer, but with little visible impact on prices.