On Tuesday, Eastern Time, Chicago Fed President Goolsbee warned that the energy shock stemming from the Middle East conflict is threatening the US Fed’s dual mandate, complicating its monetary policy outlook and potentially delaying interest rate cuts—echoing earlier remarks by Fed Governor Barr that inflation risks and oil prices support keeping rates unchanged for longer. Specifically, the energy price shock poses risks to both sides of the US Fed’s dual mandate, making the trade-off between controlling inflation and supporting economic growth more complex. “The new shock has undoubtedly disrupted the US Fed’s plans... and inflation was already uncomfortably high even before the shock occurred,” Goolsbee said bluntly. Goolsbee noted that central bank policymakers around the world lack clear historical experience to draw on in dealing with the current mix of geopolitical risks and inflationary pressures, and therefore “this is a bad situation for central banks.” Goolsbee stressed that the current path of interest rates at central banks around the world still depends heavily on how the conflict evolves, especially its impact on energy markets. As for the US Fed, he said he is not yet able to judge whether it will be able to cut interest rates again, because that outlook depends on the duration of the conflict and the extent to which rising oil prices affect overall inflation. “Only if inflation shows improvement can one realistically expect rates to fall this year,” he added, further reinforcing the US Fed’s data-dependent stance. The US Fed’s Internal Stance Is Turning More Cautious These remarks by Goolsbee were highly consistent with earlier comments by Fed Governor Michael Barr. Barr had previously also emphasized that, given that US inflation remains above target and elevated oil prices are further pushing up inflation, interest rates may need to remain unchanged “for some time.” In addition, Barr likewise pointed out that although the US labour market appears to be stabilizing, US Fed officials need to see clear evidence of sustained disinflation before considering interest rate cuts. Taken together, these comments highlight the US Fed’s increasingly cautious shift in stance. As geopolitical developments exert a growing influence on the US inflation outlook, the combination of persistent price pressures and external shocks has reinforced expectations that high inflation will last longer, while also creating uncertainty over the feasibility of further policy easing in the near term. For markets, the key point is that after the Russia-Ukraine shock several years ago, energy-driven inflation risks have now been firmly incorporated into the US Fed’s reaction function. As a result, US Fed rate expectations may remain sensitive not only to economic data, but also to developments in the Middle East conflict and their impact on oil prices.

On March 14, 2026, the Interdepartmental Commission on International Trade of Ukraine issued a notice stating that, pursuant to Resolution No. AD-598/2026/441-01 of the Commission dated March 10, 2026, it had made an affirmative final ruling in the third sunset review of the antidumping measures on steel wire ropes and cables originating in China, and decided to continue imposing antidumping duties on the products concerned for another five years at an unchanged rate of 123. The period of investigation in this case was from January 1, 2022 to March 31, 2025. The Ukrainian tariff codes of the products concerned were 7312 10 49 00, 7312 10 81 00, 7312 10 83 00, 7312 10 98 00, and 7312 10 65 00. The measures took effect from the date of publication of the notice. On August 17, 2007, Ukraine initiated an antidumping investigation into steel wire ropes and cables originating in China. On July 23, 2008, pursuant to Resolution No. AD-183/2008/143-48 of the Ukrainian Commission, Ukraine began imposing antidumping duties on the Chinese products concerned. Thereafter, Ukraine conducted two sunset reviews, and made affirmative rulings and extended the duty period on September 19, 2014 and May 28, 2020, respectively. On August 24, 2022, the Interdepartmental Commission on International Trade of Ukraine issued a notice amending the product description of Chinese steel wire ropes and cables as determined in Resolution No. AD-183/2008/143-48 dated July 23, 2008. Upon application by a Ukrainian producer, and pursuant to Resolution No. AD-582/2025/441-01 of the Commission dated May 21, 2025, Ukraine initiated the third sunset review investigation of the antidumping measures on the Chinese products concerned. (Compiled from: Ukrainian Government Website) Source: https://ukurier.gov.ua/uk/news/povidomlennya-201/

Iran’s threat to drive oil prices up to $200 a barrel may sound like hyperbole, but as the energy crisis persisted, that outcome already looked more likely than US President Trump’s prediction that oil prices would soon pull back to pre-war levels… The conflict involving Israel and the US against Iran entered its third week — and escalated into one spanning the entire Middle East — yet the global oil benchmark’s response so far was surprisingly “mediocre.” Brent crude oil was currently trading near $100 a barrel, up about 65 from the start of the year. Although that level would have been unimaginable just a few weeks ago, it still remained below last Monday’s brief peak of nearly $120. Given that since the conflict began, the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz had trapped about one-fifth of global oil supply — roughly 20 million barrels a day — crude oil prices should, in theory, have been much higher. That seemed to suggest investors still retained a degree of trust in Trump , betting that the crisis would be resolved quickly and that the Strait of Hormuz would soon reopen — whether it was called the “Trump put,” the “TACO trade,” or “buy Trump,” many oil traders appeared to be wagering that the president would ultimately be able to limit the market damage. “When this is over, oil prices will come down very, very quickly,” Trump said on Monday this week. Yet that optimism looked increasingly difficult to reconcile with realities on the ground — whether on a battlefield where the conflict was intensifying, or in the physical oil market, where supply bottlenecks were steadily spreading. Signals Being Overlooked In fact, the physical crude oil market was sending an increasing number of stress signals, even though the international benchmark “paper oil” market had so far largely ignored them. Although trade had stalled under the impact of the Iran conflict, Middle Eastern crude benchmarks still surged to record highs, making them the most expensive crude in the world. The spike in these benchmark indicators, which are used to price millions of barrels of Middle Eastern crude sold to Asia, was raising costs for Asian refiners and forcing them to seek alternatives or make further production cuts in the coming months. S&P Global Platts said Dubai spot crude assessments for May-loading cargoes hit a record $157.66 a barrel on Tuesday, surpassing the previous all-time high of $147.5 set by Brent crude oil futures in 2008. That left Dubai crude’s premium to swaps at $60.82 a barrel, compared with an average premium of just 90¢ in February. Meanwhile, Oman crude oil futures hit a record high of $152.58 per barrel on Tuesday, with its premium to the Dubai swap set at $55.74 per barrel, versus an average premium of just 75¢ in February. Oman crude oil is exported from a terminal outside the Strait of Hormuz. This surge reflected massive uncertainty over actually available supply in the Middle East after Iran repeatedly attacked Oman's oil terminal and the UAE's major oil export terminal of Fujairah outside the Strait of Hormuz. Are Brent and WTI Failing to Reflect the "True Severity" of the Oil Market? As JPMorgan's head of commodities, Natasha Kaneva, pointed out in her latest research note on Tuesday , there was a clear mismatch between international benchmark crude pricing and the Middle Eastern geography of the supply disruptions. The core issue was that Brent and WTI are benchmark indicators at opposite ends of the Atlantic basin, while the current shock is concentrated in the Middle East. As a result, these benchmark crude prices were particularly influenced by relatively loose regional fundamentals—commercial oil inventory in both the US and Europe were ample in early 2026, and supply across the Atlantic basin was also relatively abundant in the short term. In addition, expectations for a release from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR)—as well as a partial release that will soon materialize—further eased prompt tightness in Brent- and WTI-linked markets. By contrast, Middle Eastern crude benchmarks such as Dubai and Oman more accurately reflected the current dislocation in the physical market. Dubai and Oman spot prices were both trading above $150 per barrel, underscoring the severity of crude oil shortages originating in the Gulf region. These Middle Eastern oil prices were directly affected by export disruptions and therefore more effectively reflected marginal supply deficits than Atlantic-linked crude prices. Crucially, trade geography intensified this dynamic. Most of the crude transported via the Strait of Hormuz goes to Asia—before the outbreak of the Middle East conflict, about 11.2 million barrels of crude and 1.4 million barrels of refined products flowed through the strait to Asia each day. As a result, the direct physical shortage—and the surge in oil prices—was concentrated in Asian markets most dependent on Gulf crude. In fact, early signs of demand destruction had already emerged in Asia as product prices surged and spot crude became prohibitively expensive. JPMorgan noted that timing effects further reinforced this divergence. A typical voyage from Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries to Asia takes about 10 to 15 days, while cargoes bound for Europe via the Suez Canal require nearly 25 to 30 days, or 35 to 45 days if rerouted around the Cape of Good Hope. Therefore, the impact of disrupted Gulf flows would hit Asian markets sooner and more severely, while Atlantic Basin benchmarks such as Brent and WTI would enjoy a longer buffer because of surplus inventory and slower supply adjustments. The US, with crude oil production exceeding 13 million barrels per day, would be affected the least. JPMorgan believed that, in this context, the apparent price stability shown by Brent and WTI should not be taken as evidence of adequate global supply. It reflected a temporary buffer created by regional surplus inventory, benchmark composition, and policy intervention. In fact, for refiners, especially those in Asia, the current crude oil shortage had already become a serious problem. About 60% of the region’s crude oil imports depended on the Middle East, and the difficulty of finding alternative, timely supplies was rapidly becoming acute. The pressure had already forced many countries into painful adjustments. Refiners across Asia had begun cutting run rates to conserve dwindling inventory. Some countries had banned exports of refined products, a defensive move that could further tighten the global market. As the crude oil shortage worsened, refined product prices surged. Asian jet fuel prices were approaching $200 a barrel, near the record high of about $220 reached earlier this month. The Crisis Could Spread Further Ultimately, this crisis was expected to extend beyond Asia. Data from analytics firm Kpler showed that Europe accounted for about three-quarters of Middle Eastern jet fuel exports shipped through the Strait of Hormuz last year—about 379,000 barrels per day—but since the conflict began, no such cargoes had passed through the strait. Unsurprisingly, jet fuel barge prices in the Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp refining hub had surged to a record $190 a barrel, exceeding the previous peak set after the Russia-Ukraine conflict in February 2022. The comparison with the Russia-Ukraine crisis may be even more compelling. Before the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in 2022, Russia supplied about 30% of Europe’s crude oil imports and one-third of its refined product imports. As traders feared Europe would lose supplies from one of the world’s largest oil producers, Brent crude rose to $130 a barrel after the Russia-Ukraine conflict—even though that worst-case scenario never fully materialized in the end. By contrast, according to Morgan Stanley, the physical disruption caused by the Iran conflict had already exceeded that level of concern by more than threefold. Even if the Strait of Hormuz were to reopen immediately, it would not bring immediate relief. According to the International Energy Agency, about 10 million barrels per day of production in the Middle East has been shut in since the conflict began. Restoring these flows will take weeks, if not months. To be sure, the oil market entered the Iran conflict in a relatively loose state, and the International Energy Agency had projected that global supply would exceed demand by about 3.7 million barrels per day. But that surplus has now been erased by the current turmoil. Last week, the International Energy Agency announced plans to release a record 400 million barrels from member countries' strategic petroleum reserves, which will help cushion the initial shock. But drawing down inventories cannot substitute for deliveries of new oil. In other words, the supply shock to the oil market is real and may persist. Once the Strait of Hormuz finally reopens, oil prices could initially plunge in a relief rebound, but given the harsh realities of the physical market, traders may need to think twice before betting that the return to normalcy promised by Trump is about to arrive…

Right now the price of gold sits around $5,100 an ounce, which is double where it sat just over one year ago. And the war in Iran could propel the price upwards even further.

(Kitco Commentary) - Gold slipped on Thursday as a record coordinated oil reserve release from the International Energy Agency introduced a note of policy resolve into markets that had been pricing in unmitigated supply chaos.

Geopolitical tensions, and concerns about fiscal policy and central banks, have driven the gold price to where it is today.

Precious metals are having a moment. Gold and silver surged to record highs in January, benefiting from an alignment of macroeconomic factors, evolving supply-demand dynamics, and renewed industrial demand.

[SMM Morning Meeting Summary: Macro Uncertainty Still Persists, LME Zinc Maintains Wide Swings] Overnight, LME zinc opened at $3,336.5/mt. In early trading, LME zinc fluctuated upward and touched an intraday high of $3,386/mt. Prices then pulled back to a low of $3,323.5/mt, before edging up slightly near the close to finish at $3,342/mt, up $16/mt, or 0.48%. Trading volume decreased to 98,167 lots, and open interest fell by 254 lots to 216,000 lots.

SMM Nickel News, March 10: Macro and Market Updates: (1) US President Trump: The war has basically ended, and he is considering controlling the Strait of Hormuz; it is “still a long way off” from deploying US ground troops to Iran, and it is too early to talk about seizing Iran’s oil. (2) Russian President Putin and US President Trump held a phone call that day, focusing on the Middle East situation related to Iran and the progress of negotiations on the Ukraine issue. Spot Market: On March 10, SMM #1 refined nickel prices rose by 2,700 yuan/mt from the previous trading day. In terms of spot premiums, the average for Jinchuan #1 refined nickel was 6,650 yuan/mt, down 600 yuan/mt from the previous trading day; the range for domestically mainstream brands of electrodeposited nickel was -300-400 yuan/mt. Futures Market: After the morning open, the most-traded SHFE nickel 2605 contract plunged straight away, hitting a low of 132,000 yuan/mt, then rebounded sharply. As of the morning close, it was quoted at 137,240 yuan/mt, up 0.87%. In the morning session, nickel prices rebounded on news that four Indonesian high-pressure acid leaching (HPAL) nickel plants were forced into a full shutdown due to a landslide accident in February. In the short term, the most-traded SHFE nickel contract price is expected to move sideways within the 130,000-140,000 yuan/mt range.

Russian President Putin and US President Trump held a phone call the same day, focusing on the Middle East situation related to Iran and the progress of negotiations on the Ukraine issue.