U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday threatened to destroy Iran’s bridges and power plants, saying the “New Regime leadership knows what has to be done, and has to be done, FAST!” in a Truth Social post.

Trump did not elaborate on what needed to be “done,” but said the U.S. “hasn’t even started destroying what’s left in Iran.”

Hours later, Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency reportedly claimed that a U.S. F-35 fighter jet was shot down over central Iran. Images of the jet were posted on Telegram, with one photo that appeared to show the words “U.S. Air Forces in Europe” on what appeared to be the tail section of a plane.

The U.S. Central Command, which oversees the region, and Iranian authorities did not respond to a request for comment at the time of publication.

Trump’s latest threat came a day after a nationwide address in which he said the U.S. military would hit Iran “extremely hard” for the next two or three weeks. He added that the U.S. would “bring them back to the Stone Ages where they belong.”

Hours after his speech, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi struck a defiant tone on X, saying that “there was no oil or gas being pumped in the Middle East back then,” referring to Trump’s stone age remarks.

“Are POTUS and Americans who put him in office sure that they want to turn back the clock?” Araghchi said.

Iran has effectively shut tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital global oil route, after the U.S. and Israel attacked the country on Feb. 28.

Trump has repeatedly threatened to send Iran back to the “stone age” as the war entered its second month and the U.S. military build-up in the Middle East showed no signs of slowing.

Despite reports of overtures from the U.S., including ceasefires and a 15-point peace plan to end the war, Iran has publicly contradicted multiple reports about negotiations with the Trump administration on numerous occasions.

Tehran had described the 15-point proposal as “extremely maximalist and unreasonable,” according to an Al Jazeera report on March 25, citing a high-ranking diplomatic source.

Trump said Wednesday that Iran’s “New Regime President” had asked Washington for a ceasefire, a claim that Tehran has denied. Trump has not specified who the “President” is.

“We will consider when Hormuz Strait is open, free, and clear. Until then, we are blasting Iran into oblivion or, as they say, back to the Stone Ages!!!,” he wrote.

Attacks on power plants could constitute a war crime and violate international law, legal experts said.

In a letter dated Thursday and signed by over 100 law experts, the group said international law prohibits attacks on “objects indispensable to the survival of civilians, and the attacks threatened by Trump, if implemented, could entail war crimes.”

Trump had also earlier said that he could target water desalination plants in Iran.

The Gulf Cooperation Council on Thursday called on the United Nations Security Council to take “all necessary measures to ensure the immediate cessation of Iranian aggressions against the Council states.”

The six countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — have come under attack from Iranian missiles and drones as the war entered its second month.

The Kuwait Petroleum Corporation said that its Mina al-Ahmadi refinery was hit by drones early on Friday.

Jassim Albudaiwi, Secretary-General of the Gulf Cooperation Council, said that while the bloc does not seek war, Iran had “exceeded all red lines” and described Tehran’s attacks as “treacherous.”

Bahrain, the current rotating president of the Security Council, has led an effort to pass a U.N. resolution to ​authorize “all necessary means” to protect commercial shipping in and around the Strait of Hormuz.

But the proposal reportedly stalled after veto-wielding Security Council members China, Russia and France objected to the draft resolution, which would have authorized military action against Iran.

The sprawling Middle East crisis is expected to spur drivers to abandon traditional internal combustion engine vehicles in favor of EVs, analysts told CNBC, although early evidence suggests this will be a gradual gearshift.

The Iran war has severely disrupted oil exports through the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, which typically carries about a fifth of the world’s oil and liquified natural gas (LNG). It has underlined the extent to which the world remains deeply reliant on fragile fossil fuel trade routes, while surging oil and gas prices have jolted energy markets and triggered widespread inflation fears.

Various car-selling platforms in the U.S. and Europe have reported a sharp increase in consumer interest for EVs since the war began in late February. The burgeoning trend comes even as a large chunk of the legacy car industry pivots back to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.

Autotrader, an online vehicles marketplace, reported on March 26 a 28% jump in inquiries about buying a new EV and a 15% increase in inquiries about buying a used one, since the war in Iran started on Feb. 28. EV specialist Octopus Electric Vehicles said on March 25 it had seen EV leasing inquiries rise 36% since the start of the conflict.

But U.S. automakers Ford Motor, General Motors and Jeep owner Stellantis have all reversed course on EV strategies, booking tens of billions of dollars in combined write-offs and restructuring costs, in part due to lackluster consumer demand and shifting political landscapes.

Steffen Michulski, senior consultant at JATO Dynamics, said that while the situation is still evolving, it was already clear that the fallout from the Iran war could influence EV demand.

Owning a battery electric vehicle (BEV) has become more compelling for drivers covering a lot of mileage, Michulski said, given that a sharp rise in oil prices has made conventional gasoline cars much more expensive.

Switching to an EV may also provide households with an extra layer of energy independence, Michulski said, although he cautioned that it would be important not to “oversimplify” the situation. He pointed out that the overall economic environment may soften if inflation and supply chain costs continue to rise, for example, with these broader pressures impacting all powertrains — electric or combustion.

“To shorten and summarize it: Yes, elevated oil prices and the renewed focus on energy security are likely to provide a mid term boost to BEV demand,” Michulski told CNBC by email.

“But this is best understood as an incremental shift rather than a sudden market wide acceleration. Electricity price risks, technological progress on the combustion side, and general economic uncertainty all act as counterweights,” he added.

An analysis published by Transport & Environment earlier this month found that electric cars were already cutting the European Union’s oil imports, noting that the nearly 8 million EVs in the EU will save the bloc around 46 million barrels of oil in 2025. That’s the equivalent of almost 3 billion euros ($3.45 billion) in avoided oil import costs.

In the context of the Middle East conflict, meanwhile, the analysis said that petrol drivers were expected to be five times more exposed to higher oil prices than EV owners.

Poliscanova said EV growth drivers in Asia, notably Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia, which all benefit from affordable models by Chinese car manufacturers, were all likely to see an accelerated shift away from fossil fuels.

“We’re likely to see an even faster shift in some of these economies away from oil, meaning that we in Europe today, still discussing things like biofuels and hybrids, just look really stupid and detached from the reality,” Poliscanova said.

A spokesperson for the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, declined to comment.

“The hard part is done,” President Donald Trump said in his address to the nation Wednesday night about the Iran war. The recent jump in gas prices is “short term increase” that should “will rapidly come back down” once the vital Strait of Hormuz is reopened, he said.

But there is reason to worry that the conflict and its economic consequences for Americans may get worse before they get better. If so, Trump will struggle to shake off the damaging political legacy of the war.

In that he would join a long line of U.S. presidents going back to the 1970s who have seen their tenures defined by energy crisis and inflation — the economic scourge Trump has called a “nation-buster.” 

“The oil shock of the ’70s was planted in the maybe subterranean part of our brains,” said Jay Hakes, a presidential historian who led the U.S. Energy Information Administration in the 1990s during the Clinton administration. 

“It was there for a long time because it was just such a jolt. And I think this will be that kind of jolt,” Hakes said.

Gas prices on Tuesday rose above $4 a gallon on average for the first time since the war began. Gas has followed Brent crude prices that have risen 27% since the war began to just over $100 a barrel Wednesday. Oil tankers and other commercial shippers that would normally travel through the narrow Strait of Hormuz off Iran’s southern coast have been idled due to Iran’s threats and attacks. The waterway normally carries 20% of the world’s oil. 

But $4 a gallon gas, painful as it is, may only be the tip of the iceberg. That is clearer in the rest of the world than the U.S., for now. The U.K. is set to receive its last shipment of jet fuel for the foreseeable future this week. Prices of jet fuel worldwide are up 96%, according to Platts data published by the International Air Transport Association. Futures contracts for liquid natural gas in Japan and South Korea are up 43%, according to FactSet data. 

Asia and to a lesser extent Europe are more immediately exposed to disruptions in supply from the Strait of Hormuz. Unlike the U.S. — as Trump has repeatedly pointed out — they buy directly from the Middle East. But all of these commodities are connected through global markets. Disruptions in one part of the world will quickly spread to others. Analysts fear the price of oil could jump above the record near $150 a barrel set in July 2008 during the Great Recession.

So far, the world has benefited from energy supplies that were already in transit when the war began just over a month ago, aided by emergency releases from strategic petroleum reserves. But the world is burning through those supplies. 

“With even the modest estimates we have now, the loss of oil in April will be twice the loss of oil in March,” International Energy Agency Executive Director Fatih Birol said on a podcast released Wednesday.

Governments around the world are trying to encourage energy conservation in the face the crisis. A tracker from the IEA shows 26 governments have taken steps such as Pakistan lowering the speed limit.

Trump has taken steps to encourage the market to improve supply but has stopped short of calling on Americans to try to conserve energy. Doing so might call back uncomfortable comparisons to President Jimmy Carter’s attempts after the 1979 crisis, which began with the Iranian Revolution. Ronald Reagan turned Carter’s calls for consumers to limit themselves into a potent political weapon, winning him the presidency the next year. 

And Trump has spent part of his terms in the White House calling for limits on construction of and subsidies for renewable energy production.

The politics of energy have taken a toll on the nation. “We’ve lost our ability to ask the American public to sacrifice,” Hakes said. 

Before Carter, presidents — including Republicans — called on a need for shared sacrifice. President Richard Nixon proposed a national speed limit of 55 miles per hour following the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973. It was passed into law the next year, but even before that Nixon urged people to slow down, “and they did,” Hakes said. 

“We still had a little bit of the World War II mentality,” Hakes said. 

The energy crises of the 1970s put the nail in the coffin of that mentality. Nixon and Carter struggled to lower prices, and inflation surged. Carter put Paul Volcker in place as Federal Reserve chair to tackle inflation — which he eventually did, but only by raising interest rates high enough to prompt a recession, followed by record-high mortgage rates. Carter, of course, wasn’t re-elected.

Americans’ sense of what government can and should do was permanently changed.

“The failure of the nation’s politicians to address the energy crisis contributed to the erosion of faith that Americans had in their government to solve the problems,” Princeton University historian Meg Jacobs wrote in “Panic at the Pump: The Energy Crisis and the Transformation of American Politics in the 1970s.”

“If the Vietnam war and Watergate scandal taught Americans that their presidents lied, the energy crisis showed them that their government didn’t work,” Jacobs wrote.

Today, Trump’s premise as president is that government only works when he is in charge. “Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it,” he said at the 2016 Republican National Convention. He has centralized control of the executive branch in the Oval Office, drawing power from cabinet secretaries and agencies that previously operated autonomously. 

The worst-case worries may not come to pass. The U.S. could quickly force Iran to capitulate, and the global economy could heal fast, as it did after the shock of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But if not, Trump’s decision to go to war in Iran may only deepen many Americans’ alienation from their government. And as the sole decider atop the federal bureaucracy, Trump will have a difficult time convincing the public that anyone but him bears responsibility. 

Wartime propaganda has evolved for the social media age, and Iran is now vying with the U.S. to be the world’s biggest keyboard warrior.

As the real-world bombardment in the Middle East continues and casualties mount, both sides in the month-old war are also firing off ironic, pop-culture-steeped memes on the online battlefield. Iran’s new leaders have quickly assumed an online fighting posture, amping up their memes and pointed attacks on the U.S. and Israel.

“What we’re seeing is not just a war of weapons, but it’s also a war of aesthetics,” said Nancy Snow, a professor and author who studies propaganda. “Whoever controls the meme controls the mood.”

Iran’s prime target is President Donald Trump, with state media and top officials alike relentlessly mocking and amplifying criticisms of the U.S. leader.

Top members of Iran’s parliament, its Revolutionary Guard and even its president, Masoud Pezeshkian, have sought to insult or undermine Trump in their messaging. And they’re using the world’s most popular social media platforms, such as Facebook and X, to get the word out.

Among the most striking examples: a series of seemingly AI-generated videos depicting Iranian military successes against the U.S. and Israel in a Legoesque cartoon art style.

One shows a panicked Trump ordering an airstrike after reviewing the “Epstein File” alongside Satan and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Another, a rap diss track, calls Trump a “loser” and accuses him of being Netanyahu’s “puppet” over images of stock market sell-offs, missile strikes and coffins.

Those and other messages out of Iran regularly reference Jeffrey Epstein, the late notorious sex offender and former Trump friend at the center of conspiracy theories that the president launched the Iran war to distract the public from headlines about releases of files related to the Epstein investigation.

The plain intent of Iran’s messaging is not just to project defiance and counter U.S. assessments of Tehran’s military weakness, but also to undermine Trump by homing in on some of his biggest political vulnerabilities.

“Iran is blending grievance with meme culture — mixing Epstein, anti-war sentiment and pop visuals to penetrate fragmented Western audiences,” Snow said.

As for why they’re using Legos to convey their message, it may be because of their universal appeal, said Dan Butler, a political science professor at Washington University in St. Louis who uses the toys in his teaching.

“The same reason it works in education is the reason actors would use it for propaganda: people like Legos and will tune in to watch Lego-based films,” Butler told CNBC in an email.

“In fact if something is violent, using Legos might make people lower their defenses and also be more likely to share the material,” he said.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has melded wartime messaging with internet culture even more literally.

In the early days of the war, official accounts shared videos splicing clips from sports, movies and video games into real footage of military strikes.

The visuals dovetail with the relentlessly bombastic and boastful rhetoric from Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who have repeatedly trumpeted the “obliteration” of Iran’s military while assuring that the U.S. is rapidly nearing its objectives for victory.

But the White House officials involved in creating the videos say they have proven effective in drawing attention and connecting with young people. One of them told Politico the efforts are meant to tout U.S. troops’ heroic work “in a way that captivates an audience.”

The White House told CNBC it intends to stick with its messaging strategy.

“The legacy media wants us to apologize for highlighting the United States Military’s incredible success, but the White House will continue showcasing the many examples of Iran’s ballistic missiles, production facilities, and dreams of owning a nuclear weapon being destroyed in real time,” spokeswoman Anna Kelly said.

On the latter metric, the strategy has been a success: Four videos posted on the official White House X account on March 5 and 6 have garnered nearly 100 million impressions as of April 1.

Iran’s goal isn’t to convince or corral its own people — who are reportedly facing extended internet outages — but rather to craft a “response offensive” to undermine the U.S. globally, Stahl said.

“There’s a lot of erosion with regard to potential [U.S.] ally support for this war, and these messages from Iran are playing right into that.”

It’s not all memes and trolling. Iranian officials are also homing in on the war’s destabilizing impact on the global economy and energy prices.

On Monday morning, Trump wrote on Truth Social that the U.S. is “in serious discussions with A NEW, AND MORE REASONABLE, REGIME to end our Military Operations in Iran.”

The S&P 500 ended the trading day lower while oil prices continued to rise.

Ghalibaf on Tuesday shared a CNN article on Americans struggling with the war-induced spike in U.S. gas prices.

“Sad, but this is what happens when your leaders put others ahead of hard-working and ordinary Americans. It’s not America First anymore … it’s Israel First,” he wrote.

Hello, this is Holly Ellyatt writing to you from London. Welcome to another edition of CNBC’s Daily Open.

Global markets will be on tenterhooks today after the White House said that U.S. President Donald Trump will deliver an address “to the nation to provide an important update on Iran” late on Wednesday evening.

The U.S. and Israel’s military operation against Iran is just over a month old but there’s a clear sense that war fatigue could be creeping in at the top, with Trump reportedly telling aides that he was willing to end the war without reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

Speaking of which, the president on Tuesday again lambasted European allies for not getting involved in the U.S.’ war, telling the U.K. and France to “Go get your own oil” from the Iran-blocked maritime passage.

Pace yourselves if you want to listen in to President Trump’s address on Wednesday giving an update on the Iran war — it’s set to take place at 9 p.m. ET — that’s 2 a.m. on Thursday London time.

“We leave because there’s no reason for us to do this,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “We’ll be ‌leaving very soon.” He also seemed to dismiss the idea of having to reach a negotiated settlement to end the war, signaling that the U.S. could just declare victory and end hostilities.

Global markets certainly like the idea of the war ending sooner rather than later: Asia-Pacific markets rebounded overnight while European bourses look set to rally at the open on Wednesday. U.S. stock futures also ticked higher on hopes that Trump is looking for an off-ramp to the war, which has sent global energy prices rocketing. Crude oil prices once again extended gains overnight.

We’ll have to wait and see what the president says later, but he’ll be mindful that this war has never had much support from U.S. voters and the majority want him to focus on domestic matters — ‘America First,’ remember?

Speaking of voting, the president signed an executive order on Tuesday cracking down on mail-in voting ahead of the 2026 midterm elections in November. The move did not go down well with voting-rights advocates, who warned it could disenfranchise millions of Americans.

It’s April Fool’s Day, so watch out for any news that seems too outlandish – I know, it’s getting harder these days.

— Holly Ellyatt

Oracle cutting thousands in latest layoff round as company continues to ramp AI spending

Gasoline prices over $4 a gallon, part of an ongoing supply shock in the energy markets, might seem like a cue for the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates to head off inflation. At least for now, that looks like a bad bet.

Investors instead expect the central bank to hold benchmark rates steady, or even pivot back toward cuts later in the year as policymakers weigh the risk that higher energy prices will slow growth more than they fuel lasting inflation.

In market-moving remarks Monday, Fed Chair Jerome Powell signaled that raising rates now could be the wrong medicine for an economy already facing a softening labor backdrop and elevated recession concerns on Wall Street.

Asked whether he thought policymakers should consider rate increases here, Powell responded: “By the time the effects of a tightening in monetary policy take effect, the oil price shock is probably long gone, and you’re weighing on the economy at a time when it’s not appropriate. So the tendency is to look through any kind of a supply shock.”

The comments come at a critical juncture for markets, which have struggled to get a handle on the Fed’s intentions amid a bevy of conflicting and perpetually shifting economic signals.

Just a few days ago, traders began to entertain the possibility that the Fed’s next move could be a hike. That mindset followed some unsettling inflation news: Import prices rose much more than expected in February, even ahead of the war-related oil spike, while the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development raised its U.S. inflation forecast dramatically, to 4.2% for 2026.

However, Powell’s comments — complete with the usual Fed qualifiers that there are potential cases for both hikes or cuts — helped bring the market back off the hawkish position. Before the war, markets had been looking for two and possibly even three cuts this year in anticipation that inflation could continue to drift back to the Fed’s 2% target and central bankers would switch their focus to supporting the labor market.

Futures prices Tuesday morning pointed to just a 2.1% chance of a rate hike by year-end, according to the CME Group’s FedWatch tool. That’s despite headlines noting that regular unleaded gasoline had eclipsed $4 nationally at the pump and U.S. crude oil priced above $102 a barrel.

While there’s still plenty of uncertainty about where rates are headed, Wall Street commentary shifted back to expectations for cuts. To be sure, odds are still low for a reduction — about 25% — but they have climbed considerably over the past two days.

“Central bankers’ bark will be bigger than their bite” when it comes to fighting higher prices, wrote Rob Subbaraman, head of global macro research at Nomura.

“Right now, it makes sense for central banks to do nothing but sound hawkish in order to help anchor inflation expectations as headline inflation spikes,” he added. “However … the pass-through to wage growth and core inflation is likely to be limited, and instead the Middle East war could quickly morph into a global growth shock.”

Indeed, concerns about the impact that the oil price spike will have on growth superseded the worries about consumer prices, echoing Powell’s worry that hiking now won’t fix energy costs and could cause more trouble later. Policymakers are worried less about the immediate hit from energy-driven inflation than the risks that higher prices could sap consumer demand and hiring.

Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM, said central bankers should fear “demand destruction” brought on by the energy shock.

“Time is not an ally of the American economy,” he wrote. “The bigger risk is what comes next: demand destruction. That’s the economic term for what happens when high prices force people and businesses to spend less. It sounds abstract, but it’s very concrete — it means fewer cars sold, fewer homes bought, fewer restaurant meals, fewer business investments, and eventually fewer jobs.”

The Fed is in a bind policy-wise, Brusuelas added: Raising rates now risks slowing economic growth further, while standing put runs the chance that the oil situation gets worse.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, in a wide-ranging talk at Harvard University, said Monday that he sees inflation expectations as grounded despite rising energy prices so the central bank doesn’t need to respond with higher interest rates.

As his term leading the central bank nears an end, Powell avoided questions about the longer-term direction of interest rates or inclinations his designated successor has espoused.

In the near term, he said the proper move is to look beyond the short-term gyrations of the energy market and focus on the Fed’s goals of stable prices and low unemployment.

“Inflation expectations do appear to be well anchored beyond the short term, but nonetheless, it’s something we will eventually maybe face the question of what to do here,” he said during a question-and-answer question with a moderator and students. “We’re not really facing it yet, because we don’t know what the economic effects will be, but we’ll certainly be mindful of that broader context when we make that decision.”

As he has in the past, Powell said he believes the current rate target, in a range between 3.5%-3.75%, is “a good place” for the Fed to sit as it observes events currently playing out, including the Iran war and the impact tariffs are having on prices.

The comments appeared to register in financial markets, with traders no longer pricing in a significant chance of a rate hike this year. As recently as Friday morning, markets were looking at a better than 50% probability of a quarter percentage point increase amid expectations the Fed would react to the surge in energy costs. However, odds of a hike by December fell to 2.2% after Powell’s appearance.

Powell said raising rates now could have negative effects on the economy later. He noted that Fed rate moves have a lagged impact on the economy, so tightening here wouldn’t help the inflationary impact of the Iran war.

“By the time the effects of a tightening in monetary policy take effect, the oil price shock is probably long gone, and you’re weighing on the economy at a time when it’s not appropriate. So the tendency is to look through any kind of a supply shock,” he added.

Market-based measures such as breakeven rates in Treasury yields indicate few fears of an inflation spike. Breakevens measure the difference between Treasurys inflation-indexed securities. The five-year breakeven rate most recently was around 2.56% and trending lower over the past 10 days.

Powell’s term ends in mid-May, and President Donald Trump has nominated former Governor Kevin Warsh as the next chair. However, Warsh’s nomination is being held up in the Senate Banking Committee as U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro continues her investigation into renovations at Fed headquarters.

Though a judge threw out a subpoena Pirro’s office issued to Powell, she has appealed the decision. While the case is being adjudicated, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., has vowed to prevent the nomination from going through.

For his part, Warsh has stated a preference for lower interest rates than the current level. Asked to comment on his successor’s plans, Powell said, “I’m not going to swing at that pitch.”

Regarding private credit, Powell noted rising defaults, investor withdrawals and concerns about wider issues in the $3 trillion sector.

“I’m reluctant to say anything that suggests that we’re dismissive of the risk, but we’re looking for connections to the banking system and things that might result in contagion. We don’t see those right now,” he said. “What we see is a correction going on, and certainly there’ll be people losing money and things like that. But it doesn’t seem to have the makings of a broader systemic event.”

U.S. President Donald Trump said Monday that the U.S. will “completely” obliterate Iran’s electric generating plants, oil wells and Kharg Island if the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz is not “immediately” reopened and a peace deal is not reached “shortly.”

“The United States of America is in serious discussions with A NEW, AND MORE REASONABLE, REGIME to end our Military Operations in Iran,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

“Great progress has been made but, if for any reason a deal is not shortly reached, which it probably will be, and if the Hormuz Strait is not immediately “Open for Business,” we will conclude our lovely “stay” in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!), which we have purposefully not yet “touched.””

His comments come as the Iran war enters its fifth week and as the Trump administration weighs sending in ground forces to seize Kharg Island, a major fuel hub which serves as the centerpiece for Iran’s oil industry.

It is estimated that around 90% of the country’s crude exports pass through it before tankers then travel through the Strait of Hormuz. The island is also said to have a loading capacity of roughly 7 million barrels per day.

Iran has not yet commented on Trump’s latest remarks. Earlier in the day, a spokesperson for Iran’s Foreign Ministry reportedly said Iran deemed proposals presented in a 15-point plan from the U.S. as “excessive and unreasonable.” Iran’s leaders have denied being in direct talks with the U.S.

Shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has virtually ground to a halt since the U.S. and Israel launched strikes against Iran on Feb. 28. Iran has retaliated by targeting ships trying to pass through the maritime corridor, with several incidents reported in recent weeks.

Trump said last week that he would pause attacks on Iran’s energy plants for 10 days, which pushed the deadline to April 6.

Oil prices traded higher on Monday, with international benchmark Brent crude on track to notch its steepest monthly rise on record.

U.S. President Donald Trump said he has “no problem” with a Russian crude tanker delivering fuel to Cuba, appearing to reverse course over his administration’s oil blockade as the island grapples with a deepening energy crisis.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday, Trump said: “If a country wants to send some oil into Cuba right now, I have no problem with that, whether it’s Russia or not.”

His comments come as a Russian-flagged oil tanker, the sanctioned Anatoly Kolodkin, makes its way to Cuba carrying an estimated 730,000 barrels of crude oil.

The tanker is reportedly expected to reach port on Monday and is seen as something of a lifeline to the Caribbean nation, which is facing its biggest test since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Cuba had been heavily dependent on oil supplies from Venezuela, but it has effectively been cut off since early January when the U.S. launched an extraordinary military operation to depose Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

The Trump administration subsequently threatened to impose tariffs on any country that sent crude to Cuba, prompting the likes of Mexico to halt shipments. The Kremlin has previously shrugged off Trump’s tariff threats, pointing out that Washington and Moscow “don’t have much trade right now.”

Cuba’s President Miguel Díaz-Canel said last week that the island hadn’t received oil shipments in more than three months. The communist-run country, which has said it is holding talks with the U.S., has sought to dramatically increase its solar power generation amid the ongoing fuel shortage.

The island of roughly 10 million people has faced a series of power blackouts in recent weeks and the United Nations has warned that Cuban hospitals have been struggling to maintain emergency and intensive care services.

“Cuba is finished, they have a bad regime and they have very bad and corrupt leadership and whether or not they get a boat of oil it’s not going to matter,” Trump said Sunday.

“I prefer letting it in, whether it’s Russia or anybody else, because the people need heat and cooling and all of the other things that you need,” he added.

The clock is ticking on the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran. The emerging view from oil industry executives and analysts is that the economic and market fallout from the war could escalate sharply if the Strait of Hormuz isn’t reopened within roughly the next one to three weeks. Even then, enough damage may have been done already to leave energy and many other prices higher for longer. 

These risks haven’t been clearly reflected in some widely followed markets, including stocks broadly and the benchmark Brent crude price. Stopgap measures to soften the blow of the oil cutoff have kept crude prices relatively low in the U.S. and European markets. But when those measures lose their effectiveness in early-to-mid April, analysts warn there will be little the U.S. or other governments can do to keep energy prices from rising dramatically. 

Iran has attacked civilian ships and energy infrastructure in its neighborhood, causing traffic in the narrow Strait of Hormuz to fall to a standstill. Roughly 20% of global oil supply normally moves through the approximately 100-mile waterway, which borders Iran. Some oil has been rerouted through pipelines, but they can only carry so much. The U.S. and others are releasing 400 million barrels of oil from strategic reserves — the biggest release on record — and the U.S. has temporarily lifted sanctions on some Russian and Iranian oil to give the market breathing room.

The White House says it believes the president’s military strategy will soon end the Iranian threat, allowing the price worries to fade.

But all agree there is no substitute for reopening the strait. Oil industry executives have in the past few days sketched out the risk of growing disruption from the war. 

“There are very real, physical manifestations of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz that are working their way around the world,” Chevron CEO Mike Wirth said Monday at S&P Global’s CERAWeek in Houston. Shell CEO Wael Sawan echoed him a few days later at the annual gathering of industry heavyweights. Disruptions that started in South Asia have “moved to Southeast Asia, Northeast Asia and then more so into Europe as we get into April,” Sawan said Wednesday.

The talk of the conference was the difference between so-called paper and physical prices, said Ben Cahill, director for energy markets and policy at the Center for Energy and Environmental Systems Analysis, University of Texas at Austin. 

Paper prices reflect trading in financial markets and are often the headline oil prices discussed in the press. They have generally remained lower than prices for physical delivery of oil, especially in Asia, which is the main buyer of crude from the Middle East.

Brent crude futures prices rose 36% from Feb. 27, the last day of trading before the started, through March 27, when they traded above $113 a barrel. But the Dubai price, which tracks physical delivery from certain Middle East sellers, is up 76%, more than twice the paper price, at $126. That price has been especially volatile lately. 

One reason paper prices are lower is they have regularly fallen in reaction to suggestions by President Donald Trump that the war could soon end or otherwise de-escalate. Traders call that “jawboning.” 

The looming possibility of physical supply shortages in the oil market appears to be blunting the effect of Trump’s jawboning. Financial markets reflect the reality that Trump has often managed to avoid worst-case scenarios, including when he attacked Iran’s nuclear program in June. Oil futures then spiked but quickly fell once it was clear the war wouldn’t spread.