A collection of opinionated commentaries on culture, politics and religion compiled predominantly from an American viewpoint but tempered by a global vision. My Armwood Opinion Youtube Channel @ YouTube I have a Jazz Blog @ Jazz
and a Technology Blog @ Technology. I have a Human Rights Blog @ Law
Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general nominated by President Trump to oversee the Justice Department, faced pointed questions during a confirmation hearing on Wednesday from Senator John Cornyn, a Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee whose support could be crucial.
Mr. Cornyn, one of two G.O.P. lawmakers on the committee who has expressed reservations about Mr. Blanche, pressed him over a deal the department reached with the president that a federal judge said this weekamounted to self-dealing. Even a single Republican vote against Mr. Blanche could be enough to sink his nomination, and Mr. Cornyn said during a brief recess that he was undecided.
"As President Trump resumes his war, the focus is now on the Strait of Hormuz. But it remains unclear how far the U.S. military will go to exert control.
President Trump in the Oval Office on Tuesday. The latest phase of the U.S. military campaign in Iran has a new focus, but not necessarily a clearer strategy.Doug Mills/The New York Times
The Trump administration has lurched back into a war against Iran that had never really ended.
When the war started more than four months ago, U.S. forces targeted Iranian military bases, missile launchers, ships and naval facilities. Israel, fighting alongside the United States, hit leadership targets, hoping to bring down Iran’s hard-line government.
Their record of success has been mixed, at best. Israel killed the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but the leaders who succeeded him were even more hard-line. U.S. forces struck thousands of targets, but did not destroy Iran’s ability to control the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway through which about 20 percent of the world’s oil typically flows.
For roughly 90 days beginning in April, an on-again-off-again cease-fire prevailed. And then it was over.
The United States now appears to be entering Round 2 of its military campaign. This round has a new focus — but not necessarily a clearer strategy.
Iran’s ability to control the strait, despite the pummeling its navy took, is by far the most important lesson of the first phase of the war. So it is no surprise that the Trump administration is focused on trying to loosen Iran’s grip on it.
Last Tuesday,in retaliation for attacks on tankers, President Trump ordered airstrikes on dozens of targets in Iran, including coastal radars, anti-ship missile launchers and a fleet of small Iranian attack boats.
After a short lull, the United States hit 140 military targets in the first of three consecutive days of heavy bombing this week.
U.S. forces carried out new rounds of attacks on Iran throughout Tuesday and resumed a naval blockade of Iranian ports, a strategy that showed some success in the earlier phase.
The strikes are intended to open the waterway to shipping. The purpose of the naval blockade is to put economic pressure on Iran by choking off its trade and to flex American military might.
Mr. Trump was quick to declare success.
“The Strait of Hormuz is open to ALL Ship traffic except for Iran — and that is because of their lying, violent, malicious leadership, which is taking them down the path of TOTAL DESTRUCTION,” Mr. Trumpwrote on Truth Socialon Tuesday morning.
But exactly what the U.S. military will do to enforce the blockade, and how far it will go to exert control of the strait, is not clear.
A critical questionfor the next phase is whether Mr. Trump will consider an operation to take Kharg Island, a key export hub for Iran’s oil in the northern Persian Gulf.
Mr. Trump publicly mused about ordering the Marines to take control of the island during the first phase of the war, but ultimately abandoned those plans for fear of high U.S. casualties.
Such an operation would be a far bigger escalation than Mr. Trump has undertaken so far. But it would be difficult, and lives could be lost in either taking or holding the island.
The United States continues to have a fearsome arsenal in the region, including two aircraft carriers, and dozens of carrier- and land-based attack and surveillance planes.
“There are currently more than 20 U.S. Navy warships and hundreds of military aircraft operating across the Middle East," Central Commandsaid in a statementannouncing the resumption of the blockade. “American forces remain vigilant, lethal, and ready.”
In the strikes last week, U.S. forces hit more than 170 Iranian military targets. In three consecutive days of heavy bombing this week, the United States has hit 140 military targets.
Analysts said the Trump administration was sending a pointed message to the government in Tehran that the United States was willing to broaden its mission again and hit sites that have both military and civilian uses.
But senior U.S. officials said the real focus of the current phase is undoubtedly the strait.
The U.S. military has hit some targets far from the strait, but they are also connected to the central mission. For example, U.S. forces last week appeared to hit a railway bridge in northeastern Iran more than 700 miles from the strait. Online video verified by The New York Times showed several people inspecting a crater at the site.
Capt. Tim Hawkins, a spokesman for Central Command, said in a phone interview that those targets included Iranian military logistics infrastructure targets that enabled Iran to direct weapons, munitions and other military supplies to the most contested area of the conflict.
So far, Mr. Trump had not ordered resumption of such an all-out conflict, in part because that could prompt Iran to target not only U.S. military bases in Gulf countries like Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, but also energy infrastructure in those nations.
Attacks on those facilities could send oil and natural gas prices skyrocketing even higher.
Senior officials said the goal of the new military campaign is to force Iran to allow tankers and other commercial cargo ships to pass freely through the strait, and ultimately to return to the bargaining table to resume nascent talks on more difficult, long-term issues like the fate of Iran’s highly enriched uranium.
Administration officials acknowledge that the military strategy is not without risks. Iran has shown it has an asymmetric advantage. Iranian forces do not have to hit every ship passing through the strait, or sink any of them. They only have to cause enough damage and issue enough threats to scare shipping companies and insurers.
This week, Iranian missiles struck two crude oil carriers that were transiting the southern part of the strait. The attack killed an Indian crew member. Another tanker, carrying liquefied natural gas, was also hit and caught fire near the Omani coast.
Senior U.S. officials said time remains on the American side as Iran’s economy collapses.
During the uneasy peace, Iran was able to get many of its tankers out, and to empty storage tanks that were overflowing with oil.
The resumed blockade will cause that oil to back up once more, and the money Iran has made from its oil exports will begin to dry up.
But the real question is: Can Iran’s hard-line leadership outlast Mr. Trump’s anxiety over rising oil prices?
Julian E. Barnescovers the U.S. intelligence agencies and international security matters for The Times. He has written about security issues for more than two decades.
Eric Schmittis a national security correspondent for The Times. He has reported on U.S. military affairs and counterterrorism for more than three decades. Contact him securely on Signal:@ericschmitt.36.
David E. Sanger covers the Trump administration and a range of national security issues. He has been a Times journalist for more than four decades and has written four books on foreign policy and national security challenges."
Joan Rivet told the Mountaineer she took a step backwards in her bathroom and toppled over into her tub.Photograph: artbokeh/Getty Images/iStockphoto
An 82-year-oldNorth Carolinawoman says she survived falling in her bathtub and being trapped there for nine days by turning the faucet on with her foot and drinking water that she managed to splash up to her face – all while drifting in and out of consciousness.
Joan Rivet recently shared her remarkable survival story with North Carolina’sThe Mountaineernewspaper, providing an extreme example of the kinds of emergencies that can face the millions of older Americans who fall by accident annually, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)estimates.
Such falls are prevalent enough that in the 1980s they served as the premise of the LifeAlert medical alarm and protection company’s commercials which thrust the phrase “I’ve fallen – and I can’t get up” into the US lexicon. Furthermore, on Sunday, 84-year-old Kentucky senatorMitch McConnell revealedit was a fall that led to a 14 June hospitalization which had kept him out of the public eye for weeks.
In her case, Rivet, a widow since 2023 living by herself in a mountain home in theNorth Carolinacommunity of Clyde, told the Mountaineer from a physical rehabilitation facility bed where she was recovering that the act of prayer comforted her as she waited more than a week for help.
“I stayed away from the dark side of the whole situation because once you go down there – how do you get out?” the outlet quoted her as saying.
Sheriff Bill Wilke of Haywood county, North Carolina, confirmed deputies with his office found Rivet on 10 June after her brother, Bill Lesko, who lives in Georgia, called them to check on her wellbeing.
Lesko became concerned when his sister, who lives five hours from him, had not returned his calls checking in on her, which occur at least weekly, as the Mountaineer reported. Lesko had reportedly first called her neighbors, who noticed Rivet’s car was in the driveway – but there had been no signs of movement inside.
Deputies arrived to find Rivet semi-conscious in the bathtub. She later told the Mountaineer that she had been getting ready for bed on 1 June when she took a step backwards in the bathroom and toppled over into her tub, coming down with the shower curtain and rod.
Rivet hurt her back and realized she couldn’t pull herself up out of the tub, she recounted to the Mountaineer. With her telephone beyond reach in another room, she yelled for help, with her cat, Phoebe, the home’s only other occupant, meowing alongside her.
But her neighbors couldn’t hear her. Hours passed, then eventually days – and she knew she needed to drink if she was going to survive the ordeal.
The faucet was at the tub’s far end, and she couldn’t grasp it with her hand, the Mountaineer reported. So she told the outlet that she figured out how to turn the knob of the tub faucet with her foot – then drank water by splashing it up to her face.
Meanwhile, Rivet slipped in and out of consciousness as she saw days “get dark and lighter, dark and lighter”, she remarked to the Mountaineer.
She recalled praying, “Lord, help, help, help release the pain,” as she struggled to get comfortable in the tub imprisoning her. She also remembered thinking at one point: “Oh my goodness, what did I do?”
But she said she did not remember first responders bringing her to the hospital after her brother’s intervention led them to Rivet.
Rivet arrived with severe dehydration and bed sores from spending so much time positioned in the tub. Hospital staff treated her with IVs and administered liquid food to her while she recovered.
She had been transferred to a rehabilitation facility in Waynesville, North Carolina, by the time her Mountaineer interview was published on 7 July.
“I’m warm, I’m dry. I had a shower this morning – hallelujah – they washed my hair,” Rivet said of her improved fortunes. “I’ve had food and water. I’m content.”
Phoebe survived as well, according to the Mountaineer.
“I’m still regaining my energy, still regaining confidence,” Rivet told the outlet. “Doing what I can do and believing in myself.”
Rivet said her ordeal nevertheless has prompted her to plan on moving to Georgia to live with family. She also told the Mountaineer that the episode fundamentally shifted her outlook on the concept of community.
“I have two other neighbors that live alone, too,” Rivet said. “And now we say we need to check on one another.”
The Lyondell chemical plant in Channelview, Texas.Photograph: David J Phillip/AP
The Trump administrationhas stackeda top chemical safety board with industry-aligned scientists who have a range of financial conflicts of interest and stand to profit from deregulation, public health advocates say.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s science advisory committee on chemicals (SACC) is slated to review research for dozens of toxic chemicals during the new members’ terms. At least 13 proposed Trump appointees are probably conflicted on the chemicals that will be reviewed, comments filed with the EPA by a coalition of public health advocacy groups alleges.
Their appointment, critics warn, is designed to provide scientific justification for the EPA’s broader campaign todismantle the nation’s protectionsagainst toxic chemicals.
Among the appointees are Wade Barranco, employed by Lyondell Chemical Company, which in 2024 released nearly 1m pounds of chemicals likely to be reviewed by the SACC during his term, including acetaldehyde, benzene, ethylbenzene, naphthalene and styrene.
The public health groups say the appointees’ participation on reviews in which there is a conflict could be illegal. They pointed to federal law and the EPA’s internal guidelines that state that the SACC must be “both balanced and free of members who have actual or perceived conflicts of interest or an appearance of a loss of impartiality”.
Erik D Olson, senior strategic director for health for the Natural Resources Defense Council non-profit, which is among those leading the investigation into the appointees, said it was “clear why they were put on the committee”.
“They are mouthpieces for the chemical industry, or consulting firms bought and paid for by the chemical companies,” Olson said.
The SACC comprises 20-23 experts appointed every three years by the EPA administrator. It peer-reviews EPA science and scrutinizes the chemical risk analyses that underpin the agency’s decisions to regulate substances, with the aim of ensuring that the best available science is used.
The SACC typically includes experts from across the scientific community, including those affiliated with chemical makers, but the new board will be heavily tilted toward industry.
The industry-aligned SACC will probably ensure that scientific research that supports industry positions are used, and the board “will just rubber-stamp everything”, said Kyla Bennett, a former EPA scientist now with the Public Employees for Responsibility non-profit.
“It will give them cover for bad science,” Bennett added.
For its report, the public health coalition reviewed the EPA chemical data reporting database and toxics release inventory, which track the manufacture and release of toxic chemicals. It identified which companies were making or releasing the chemicals that the SACC will review.
It then scrutinized publicly available backgrounds of the proposed SACC appointees, and linked them to the companies that have reported making, using or releasing the chemicals. In other words, the analysis concretely shows which SACC appointees and their employers probably stand to profit from the SACC decisions.
“We believe the information we provide in these comments is sufficient to find that actual or potential conflicts of interest or an appearance of a loss of impartiality,” the coalition report states.
Another nominee is Michael Dourson, an industry-aligned scientist who in 2024 ledan elaborate operationto attempt to undo the Biden EPA Pfas water limits. He once worked for the EPA but left the agency toset upwhat his critics characterize as a “one-stop shop” for industry-friendly research, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (Tera).
In 2017, Trump nominated Dourson to oversee the EPA’s chemical safety division, but he was forced towithdraw his nameafter failing to get enough Republican support, in part because his Senate criticsallegedhe ran a “science for sale” operation that allowed industry’s American Chemistry Council to edit papers. Dourson has said he withdrew his name because of procedural reasons.
Dourson did not answer questions sent by the Guardian, but sent a link to Tera’s funding page. He has previously said Tera is “impartial” and receives money from NGOs and regulatory agencies. He has called it a “science-neutral group that exists to help all parties out”.
However, Dourson has never responded to questions about why Tera’s conclusions almost universally differ from groups that do not receive any industry money, and often align with chemical makers’ positions.
The new report states that Dourson has been paid by chemical makers or industry groups to work on chemicals that SACC will probably soon review, including tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), acrylonitrile, styrene and naphthalene.
His work on TBBPA, funded by the American Chemistry Council’s North American Flame Retardant Alliance, contradicted “the best available science” on reproductive toxicity and harms to developing children, the report claims.
Dourson’s appointment is a “blatant attack on the scientific independence and integrity” of the SACC, said Sarah Vogel, director of healthy communities for the Environmental Defense Fund.
“The appointment of Michael Dourson, who hasspent his careerat the helm of firms that have taken money from the tobacco industry and dozens of chemical companies to undermine public health protections, is the definition of a conflict of interest,” Vogel added.
Meanwhile, the board is chaired by Robinan Gentry, a consultant from Ramboll, an industry-aligned group that regularlyattacks chemicalregulations.
The EPA said in a statement that some of the issues the public health groups claim are conflicts could be viewed as “general scientific expertise gained through prior employment, grants, or consulting”.
“The mere fact that a scientist has previously worked in industry, academia, or for a nonprofit organization is not, under federal law, a conflict of interest, and does not disqualify them from serving as Special Government Employees,” the agency said in a statement.
Olson disagreed.
“The fox is not guarding the hen house – the fox owns the hen house, and is able to control any theoretical oversight of EPA science,” Olson said. “When you have chemical industry people running the EPA’s toxics office, and theoretically independent reviewers have these conflicts, it’s pretty clear there won’t be independent voices.”
I worked for Lindsey Graham’s 2016 presidential campaign as his national director of ballot access and delegates. As part of his senior staff, I spent one-on-one time with Graham advising him on different political initiatives related to getting him on every primary ballot and securing delegates for the Republican convention. I worked for him because I saw him at the time as a man of moral clout who was unafraid to speak his mind and who would be a good guide for the American people.
Needless to say, I was wrong.
Since Donald Trump took office, Graham, the man who told America that Donald Trump was nothing more than a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot” has morphed into one of the most fawning Trump sycophants in the entire GOP herd.
When I speak to former colleagues of mine who are—or were—in the Republican sphere that includes Graham, the conversation about “what happened to Lindsey Graham?” usually ends with the conclusion that he is scared to death of what life would be like if he wasn’t a U.S. senator.
In an interview in February 2019, Graham was asked why he had such a dramatic shift of allegiance towards Donald Trump. His answer: “From my point of view, if you know anything about me, it’d be odd not to do this.” When asked what “this” meant, he said “try to be relevant.”
It seems that for Graham, changing one’s operational code to fit the political climate so as to stay close to power is not just acceptable—it’s part of his inherent identity. The flippant manner in which he speaks about not standing on principles makes it clear how he could go from telling Americans they should “tell Donald Trump to go to hell” to effectively licking Trump’s boots on command.
Every politician moves and shakes in some way—it’s the nature of the beast. But for Graham, his song and dance has been more aggressive than most. It includes lies, over-the-top rhetoric, immoral conduct, and a direct assault on our democratic institutions.
Some of the highlights: aggressively encouraging Trump to subvert the Constitution by redirecting Congressionally appointed money; allowing his campaign team to go unpunished for using a racist dog-whistle against Jamie Harrison; failing to stand against Trump’s attacks on John McCain when his old friend passed away; reneging on his word that he wouldn’t support a SCOTUS appointment in the last year of a presidential campaign; mocking the juror oath he took for Trump’s impeachment hearing.
Add it up, and you have a man of low character.
Yet somehow, Graham has found a new low in the waning days of Trump’s presidency.
Lindsey Graham has sought to have legally cast ballots excluded from the vote count in Georgia. This goes beyond indulging Trump’s conspiracy theories and into the realm of actively trying to undermine the democratic process.
On Monday evening, the Washington Post reported on the ongoing audit of Georgia’s election results. Republicans have been exerting pressure on Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to throw out ballots. Donald Trump has been spreading conspiracy theories and lies about the result in Georgia. And Lindsey Graham has been on the phone with Secretary Raffensperger asking him if he has the power to exclude all mail ballots in counties with higher rates of non-matching signatures.
The Post reports that Secretary Raffensperger was “stunned” by Graham’s comments to exclude ballots and quotes him saying, “it sure looked like he [Lindsey Graham] was wanting to go down that road.”
For the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to suggest to a Secretary of State that thousands of ballots should be thrown out is outrageous. Graham is not just dabbling in illegal behavior, he is seeking to undermine the bedrock of our republic: free and fair elections.
If Lindsey Graham had any sense of shame, he would resign from the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. And since he obviously does not, there should be a Senate ethics inquiry into this conduct.
But of course, that won’t happen, either.
Lindsey Graham seems not to care that liberal self-governance is a fragile system. And this can’t be a case of ignorance: Graham knows better. After all, he spent much of his political life fighting with John McCain for people in countries who do not have democratic rule.
But what if even that previous incarnation of Graham was a facade, too? Because knowing what we do now about Graham, it seems possible—likely, even—that his association with McCain was based on rank opportunism, too. After all, McCain was a heavy hitter. His advice was sought from people in all corners of our government and democratic governments around the world. He was the party’s standard bearer in 2008 and was, by universal acclaim, a national treasure. Perhaps Graham’s association with him was just the easiest route to Graham becoming “relevant.”
What several years ago was a head scratching question—What happened to Lindsey Graham?—is now pretty clear. For Graham, being a United States Senator isn’t about helping Americans or advancing principles. It’s about swimming in the pool of power and feeding off the scraps the big fish leave behind. In short: Lindsey Graham is everything that’s wrong with our political system.
It is your character, and your character alone, that will make your life happy or unhappy. That is all that really passes for destiny. And you choose it. No one else can give it to you or deny it to you. No rival can steal it from you. And no friend can give it to you. Others can encourage you to make the right choices or discourage you. But you choose.
I wonder what Lindsey Graham thinks about that advice. After all, it comes from a man who was one of the most relevant leaders of his generation.“
“Senator Lindsey Graham, despite his ability to maintain relationships across political divides, struggled to gain support from Black voters in South Carolina, a state where politics remain racially polarized. While he supported some legislation benefiting underserved communities and welcomed the state’s first Black senator, his conservative stances and alignment with President Trump often clashed with the political views of Black voters. Black leaders acknowledged his ability to maintain relationships despite disagreements, but emphasized that his politics did not reflect the majority of Black people’s views.
Mr. Graham, a long-serving senator from South Carolina, was known for his ability to maintain relationships even with his political foes. But the support of Black voters remained elusive.
Senator Lindsey Graham won only 6 percent of Black votes in 2020, according to exit polls. More recently, about 10 percent of Black voters said they approved of how he was handling his job as senator, according to a May Citadel poll.Anna Rose Layden for The New York Times
Over Senator Lindsey Graham’s decades of political service, he charmed many people at home, in Washington and overseas, even if they disagreed with him on politics and policy.
But in South Carolina, where politics remain racially polarized, he was often at odds with one constituency: Black voters, who make up about a quarter of the electorate.
Mr. Graham won only 6 percent of their votes in 2020, according to exit polls. More recently, about 10 percent of Black voters said they approved of how he was handling his job as senator, according to a May Citadel poll. Those voters remain overwhelmingly supportive of Democratic candidates.
“Black folks didn’t elect Graham — not in this red state,” said Elder James Johnson III, the founder of the National Racial Justice Network, a civil rights nonprofit in North Charleston, S.C. “He just wasn’t a household name in the Black community.”
Mr. Graham was elected to the Senate in 2002, succeeding Strom Thurmond.
While Mr. Thurmond had repeatedly resisted integration, Mr. Graham represented a different era of white Southern politician.
“He had the ability to make you feel welcome when you are going to do something that has never been done before,” said Mr. Scott, now the state’s senior senator, in an interview Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” Mr. Graham, he said, always seemed “to want to embrace you and accept you.”
But Mr. Graham faced pushback over his conservative stances, especially as he morphed from critic to stalwart ally of President Trump after the 2016 campaign.
“South Carolina will definitely miss Lindsey,” said Adolphus Jones, the president of the Union County chapter of the N.A.A.C.P., outside Greenville. “But even though we’re going to miss him, his politics were not reflective of the majority of Black people’s politics.”
At times, his comments rankled some Black voters, including his suggestion during a 2020 televised forum that “if you’re a young African American, an immigrant, you can go anywhere in this state — you just need to be conservative.”
That same year, he was criticized for referencing “the good old days of segregation” while questioning Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett during her confirmation hearing. Mr. Graham said he made those comments “with deep sarcasm.”
On Sunday, however, some Black leaders in South Carolina offered their condolences to Mr. Graham’s family, emphasizing the senator’s ability to maintain relationships despite often-intense political disagreements.
“Our political relationship was sometimes partisan and passionate, but always pleasant and productive on behalf of the people of South Carolina,” said Representative James E. Clyburn, the lone Black Democrat in the House from South Carolina.
Jaime Harrison, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee who unsuccessfully challenged Mr. Graham for the Senate seat in 2020, said in a statement on Sunday, “I always appreciated that even in our fiercest political battles, we could still share a conversation, a laugh, and a mutual respect for South Carolina and the institutions we were both privileged to serve.”
Minho Kim and Ruth Igielnik contributed reporting from Washington.
Eduardo Medina is a Times reporter covering the South. An Alabama native, he is now based in Durham, N.C.
Emily Cochrane is a national reporter for The Times covering the American South, based in Nashville.“
“Renewed hostilities between the U.S. and Iran in the Persian Gulf have increased risks for ships navigating the Strait of Hormuz, causing a 2% rise in Brent crude oil prices. This has led to a decrease in daily ship traffic through the strait, impacting global oil supplies and raising concerns about potential “demand destruction” due to high energy prices. While oil markets have adjusted to this volatility, any renewed negotiations towards peace are more likely to influence prices than new strikes.
The renewed hostilities posed fresh risks to ships seeking to navigate the Strait of Hormuz.
Ships at the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday.Reuters
The continued cycle of attacks between Iran and the United States in the Persian Gulf posed fresh risks to ships seeking to navigate the Strait of Hormuz, testing markets on Sunday.
Brent crude, the international oil benchmark, rose 2 percent on Monday, to between $77 and $78 a barrel. That is 7 percent higher than its prewar price.
Daily ship traffic through the strait, which normally carries a fifth of the world’s oil, recently dropped to the lowest level in a month, with the latest data showing only 14 ships braving the passage on Sunday, according to Kpler, a maritime data firm. More than 130 vessels passed through daily before the war.
In the latest round of attacks, the U.S. military said it had hit about 140 targets in Iran over the weekend after Tehran attacked a container ship in the strait. Iran’s military said on Monday it had responded by firing at U.S. military targets in the region, including in Bahrain, Jordan and Kuwait.
Amena Bakr, head of Middle East research at Kpler, said any assurance that commercial vessels had gained with the ability to pass through the Strait of Hormuz over the past few weeks was gone.
“That confidence eroded very, very quickly,” Ms. Bakr said. “We’re back to square one when it comes to that situation.”
Although oil prices are far below the peak of nearly $120 a barrel during the worst of the war, the market shifts that follow each round of strikes have shown Iran’s capacity to move energy prices.
Price of Brent crude oil
How much the international benchmark costs
A recovery in shipping traffic after the United States and Iran signed a preliminary cease-fire agreement last month had led to a “sharp” increase in global oil supplies, the International Energy Agency said in a report released on Friday. Oil exports from the Persian Gulf jumped by 6.5 million barrels per day in June, to around 16 million barrels per day, helping to bring down prices.
Still, last month’s export pace was only about two-thirds of prewar levels. A more comprehensive recovery is “contingent on a swift de-escalation of renewed hostilities,” the I.E.A. said.
If ships become more wary of plying the strait after recent attacks, the talk among economists may turn from forecasts of an impending oil glut to worries about “demand destruction” as high energy prices squeeze businesses and consumers. The average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States remains 30 percent higher than before the war. It was $3.87 a gallon on Monday, up from $3.80 a gallon a week earlier, according to the AAA motor club. Diesel was $4.88 a gallon, up from $4.76 a gallon.
Futures for the S&P 500 fell about 0.25 percent on Monday, signaling that U.S. stock markets were set to open lower at the start of trading in New York. Stocks in Asia, where countries import vast quantities of oil and gas from the Middle East, fell broadly. Stocks in Europe were also lower.
S&P 500 index
How stocks are trading in the United States
Worries about energy-induced inflation have pushed up yields on U.S. government bonds, with the yield on the 10-year Treasury hovering around 4.57 percent on Monday, about a tenth of a percent higher than a week ago — a big move in a short time for that market.
Ms. Bakr of Kpler said that oil markets appeared to have grown accustomed to volatility and on-again, off-again hostilities between the United States and Iran. She said oil prices were more likely to fall at any hint of renewed negotiations toward peace than they were to surge with new strikes.
“The market has adjusted to this new normal,” Ms. Bakr said, adding, “The movement of prices hasn’t really reflected the reality of the situation or the level of geopolitical risk.”
Iran insists that its waters are the only viable route through the Strait of Hormuz for commercial vessels. Ships instead taking a route close to Oman’s coastline, guided and protected by the U.S. military, have drawn Tehran’s wrath. The vessel attacked this weekend was in Omani waters, as were the ships hit last week, setting off the latest cycle of tit-for-tat retaliation.
The middle of the strait, where ships traveled before the war, is considered dangerous because of the risk of mines laid by Iran’s military.
Jason Karaian is a deputy business editor at The Times, based in London.
Lisa Friedman is a business correspondent covering energy for The New York Times.“
