Tankers that left the Persian Gulf before the war are now arriving at port. That is to say: the worst moment in terms of hydrocarbon availability is yet to come. But the disruption will not be permanent. For a paradoxical reason. US stocks hit their all-time high this week. Financial markets are telling Trump that they want peace and for him to stop the war. It is a market that Trump can manipulate with tricks for his own benefit, but hardly to encourage him to wage war if they do not want it. They are his friends and they have expressed themselves clearly. Nevertheless, the moment is dangerous. The temptation to flee forward will be there. But I believe that the Persian leaders, fanatical but not stupid, will understand, and that in a relatively short period an understanding will be reached that will allow both sides to claim victory. I think it will include an open Strait of Hormuz.

After Iran announced the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, oil and gas prices have plummeted in the markets. Specifically, on Friday afternoon, the price of a barrel of Brent crude oil – the benchmark in Europe – fell by more than 10% and stood at around $89. Futures for West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude—the benchmark in the United States—stood at around $83, almost 12% less than on Thursday. At some points during the conflict, the price of a barrel of Brent had touched $120. Despite Friday's drop, the price of oil remains above the $72 it stood at just before the attack by the United States and Israel on Iran.

The Spanish oil company Repsol has signed an agreement with the Ministry of Hydrocarbons of Venezuela and the state-owned company Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) that will allow it to resume control of operations and increase oil production in the South American country.

Monday of strong tension in international financial markets. The failure of peace negotiations between Iran and the United States during this weekend has transferred geopolitical tension directly to the trading floors, which have once again turned red. Donald Trump's order to block the Strait of Hormuz –and his direct threat to sink any Iranian ship that ignores the siege– has set off all alarms about global supply.

The war in Iran does not impact our economy due to our economic and commercial relations with the area, but rather due to the effect on energy markets, especially oil and gas, which it has and will have in the near future. What truly weighs is not Tehran on our trade and our prices, it is Hormuz. We only need to recall the advanced CPI figure for March, 3.3%, one point higher than in February, with no change in the underlying inflation and, therefore, due to the increase in energy prices, in a context of weak growth in Europe and a not negligible slowdown of about one point in Spain and Catalonia, where the average citizen does not perceive growth improvements, per capita income does not change, and where the Treasury will be one of the beneficiaries of this higher inflation given that it does not correct tax progressivity (essentially income tax).

The first oil crisis, that of 1973-1974, ended up generating, especially in the developed Western world, a situation that was defined as "stagflation", that is, the simultaneity of economic stagnation and inflation. The world had come from a place where the two concepts were quite opposed, given that stagnation was fought with expansionary policies that were inflationary and inflation could be reduced with stabilization policies (i.e., stagnation or contraction). The repetition of expansionary policies simultaneous to the existence of strong supply inflation —the increase in the price of oil was due to unforeseen extra-economic causes—, ended up meaning that economic stimulus policies were useless. Only the same stagnation that was sought to be combated was achieved, but with the addition of inflation.

Markets have already reacted to the news of the ceasefire between the US and Iran, which includes the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world's consumed oil and natural gas circulates. Asia's main stock markets have led the green trend in this last session, a trend that European and North American stock markets have subsequently followed.

Spain and Catalonia continue to be European exceptions regarding the performance of the economy and job creation. With the data for March presented by the Ministry of Labour, Spain reaches for the first time in history the mark of 22 million Social Security affiliates, 3.4 million more than in 2018, when Pedro Sánchez arrived at Moncloa. In the case of Catalonia, the record was reached last summer, with 3.9 million affiliates, then it fell slightly and is now about to recover (3.88 million). Unemployment also decreased by 23,000 people in the State and by 3,777 in Catalonia. At the end of the month, we will have the data from the EPA survey and, therefore, a more accurate snapshot of the unemployment rate.

The OPEC+ alliance, led by Saudi Arabia and Russia, agreed this Sunday to increase its oil production by 206,000 barrels per day starting May 1, despite the war in Iran. In fact, the agreement is little more than a symbolic gesture, because the implementation of the increase will not be possible while the war continues and the Strait of Hormuz remains blocked, through which much of the oil from the members of the oil cartel exits to the markets.

Thursday, ARA put on its front page: “The expectation of a quick end to the war is encouraging markets”. Indeed, on Wednesday the Ibex-35 had risen by 3.16% because the conviction had spread that the war would end soon. However, on Thursday itself the index lost part of the previous day’s gains. This is tantamount to saying that the stock markets – that is, financiers – do not have clear ideas about how the war will impact the economy. Since the first bomb fell, the Ibex-35, like the American Dow Jones, has only fallen by 5%. To give us an idea of what the stock market does when a real crisis begins, at the end of 2007, and in a few weeks, the Ibex-35 fell by 33%, and did not begin to recover until seven years later. In contrast to the bewilderment of financiers, engineers show a solid pessimism. The International Energy Agency has published a ten-point plan of measures for governments to adopt to save energy, and the European Union commissioner has sent a letter to governments suggesting, among other things, rationing gasoline, promoting teleworking, and even prohibiting the circulation of private vehicles on Sundays (a measure in force during the energy crisis of the 70s). The basis for this view is that the energy infrastructures in the Persian Gulf have been so damaged that, even if the war ended today, supply would not be able to return to normal for several months.In this context, it is interesting to compare the Spanish government's response to that of the Chinese. The former has reacted by lowering the VAT levied on fuels, which has gone from 21% to 10%. This has meant that, despite the price of gasoline rising by 15%, the consumer only perceives a 4% increase. On the other hand, the Chinese government raised prices by 13% on the 23rd. The former, implicitly optimistic, tries to gain time, while the latter – prudent – prepares its population for the worst, and prefers them to start saving fuel from the outset.

The European Union is studying possible measures such as rationing fuel and releasing more oil from strategic reserves in the face of the risk of a "lasting" energy shock resulting from the war in the Middle East, European Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen assured this Friday in an interview with the British newspaper Financial Times. The bloc is evaluating "all options," according to Jørgensen, who warned that "energy prices will be higher for a long time."

The European Union is considering possible measures such as rationing fuel and releasing more oil from strategic reserves in the face of the risk of a "lasting" energy shock stemming from the war in the Middle East, European Commissioner for Energy Dan Jørgensen said this Friday in an interview with the British newspaperFinancial Times. The bloc is evaluating "all options", according to Jørgensen, who warned that "energy prices will be higher for a long time".

The tension around the war with Iran has once again shaken energy markets and driven the price of oil above 110 dollars a barrel. After Donald Trump's speech, in which he avoided specifying when the Strait of Hormuz could be reopened, investors reacted nervously and accelerated crude oil purchases. The West Texas Intermediate (WTI), a benchmark in the United States, has climbed above this threshold —the highest level since March 9— and is heading for its most intense daily increase since 2020, while Brent, a benchmark in Europe, also maintains an upward trend in a context marked by geopolitical uncertainty and the risk of further supply disruptions.

The crisis in energy markets stemming from the war in the Middle East will worsen "significantly" heading into April compared to March, according to the executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Fatih Birol. The Turkish director, who visited the podcast of Nicolai Tangen, CEO of Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), explained that while during the last month shipments from the Middle East were still arriving at ports, by April "there will be nothing".

The escalation of the war in the Middle East, with the entry of the Houthis into the conflict, has sent oil prices soaring this Monday, reaching highs since the beginning of the war. During the day, the price of a barrel of Brent crude exceeded 115 dollars, although it later fell slightly and by the afternoon was around 112 dollars per barrel.

When the conflict with Iran began, I warned that the impact on the markets would probably be a matter of days. And, with the information we had then, it was a reasonable assessment: both investors and analysts (like me) expected a short conflict. The reality, however, is quite different.

No one could have imagined, when the US and Israel launched the first attacks against Iran on Saturday, February 28, that especially Washington and, specifically, US President Donald Trump, had not foreseen the consequences. The evolution of events makes it increasingly clear: there was no strategy. At least, not on the part of the US. Another thing is the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, which takes advantage of the opportunity to achieve its expansionist goals, with no regard for international law and human rights.

“Demand has doubled, but usage has not”, said Chris Bowen, Australia’s Minister for Climate Change and Energy, in a parliamentary debate that more closely resembled a farce, were it not for the fact that following the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz, a liter of gasoline has surpassed 3 dollars (1.80 euros) and more than a hundred gas stations have run out of fuel.

In his latest book, essayist and political advisor Giuliano da Empoli states, The hour of the predators (Ediciones 62), that "chaos is no longer the weapon of insurgents but the hallmark of power." In the book, he explains that new world leaders like Trump or Putin act as agents of chaos because it is the way to consolidate their authority in a world where there are no rules but brute force. Donald Trump's actions in the last few hours perfectly fit this definition.

Energy markets saw trading worth $580 million – just over €500 million – moments before US President Donald Trump announced talks with Iran on Monday to resolve the conflict, triggering a drop in oil and gas prices. According to data calculated by Financial TimesBetween 6:49 and 6:50 a.m. (local time) on Monday, just 15 minutes before Trump announced the "productive" negotiations with Iran on Truth Social, approximately 6,200 futures contracts for both Brent crude oil—the European benchmark—and West Texas Intermediate crude—the U.S. benchmark—were traded. Similarly, an unusual increase in trading in S&P 500 futures was observed after the first oil transactions. This trend contrasted with the direction of the session prior to the market opening. At the moment, it is unknown whether any company is behind these extraordinary movements, and although it is difficult to prove what motivated these operations, there is speculation about possible insider trading that could benefit certain financial players. Financial TimesWhite House spokesman Kush Desai denied that the US administration allows "any administration official to illegally profit by exploiting insider information, and any insinuation that officials engage in such activities without evidence is baseless and irresponsible." "The sole focus of President Trump and his administration officials is to do what is best for the American people," the spokesman stated. On Monday, Donald Trump announced "constructive" talks with Iran and ordered a postponement of any military strikes against the Persian country's power plants. The postponement contradicted the 48-hour ultimatum announced the previous day, with which the US president sought to pressure Iran into reopening the Strait of Hormuz. These apparent signs of a cooling of the conflict in the Middle East were well received by the markets, and most stock market indices experienced gains during the day. Energy prices plummeted: the price of Brent crude fell by as much as 17%, dropping below the $100 mark.