(Bloomberg) -- European natural gas prices will be a whopping 40% higher than previously projected for 2026 and will stay elevated through 2027 as the Iran war and closure of the Strait of Hormuz set off a supply shortfall, according to a report from HSBC Holdings PLC.

Dutch futures prices, Europe’s gas benchmark, are now expected to average $14 per million British thermal units next year and $10 per million Btu in 2027, the London-based investment bank said in its most recent forecast. HSBC’s outlook for 2028 and beyond remains $8.50 per million Btu.

About 20% of global liquefied natural gas flows through Hormuz, a key waterway that’s been effectively closed since attacks began last month. That disruption to LNG supply will force European countries to pay a significant premium for fuel, the report said. Asian countries, which source around 26% of their LNG from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, will have to scramble to find alternative cargoes, according to the report.

Europe is particularly sensitive to an LNG supply shock as its storage levels are about 15 percentage points lower than the five-year average after a cold winter drove up demand for the heating and power-plant fuel.The sharp forecast price increase stands in stark contrast to US natural gas futures, which have barely budged as stockpiles are ample and US LNG export terminals are already operating near maximum capacity, insulating the world’s largest gas exporter from global supply shock.

By "they" are retaliating I meant Isreal not GCC thanks for pointing that out.

Yep, ALREADY acknowledged that. One is a direct action war, one is a proxy war.

Annnnnnnnnd you missed the point completely in the fashion I was responding to Turbo;

BOTH of these are/will be costing the U.S. tax payers 100 of billions of dollars.
BOTH of these conflicts will affect oil prices.

As mentioned, in one we're using direct military action to play whack a mole in an attempt to topple a regime. In another, we're funding a proxy in an attempt to bleed a foreign adversary dry/into extinction economically, and has been mentioned in the Ukraine threads ad nauseam, drive a regime change.

All in attempts to exert/flex our power in various part of the world and eliminate threats. But, at the end of the day.........

BOTH of these are/will be costing the U.S. tax payers 100 of billions of dollars.
BOTH of these conflicts will affect oil prices.

Let me guess, you have a Ukraine flag in your yard?

And about Russia being "neo-imperial", does that make the U.S. paleo-imperial?

Good point;

- POTUS 46-

Those who had given any thought to what would be almost immediate results from sanctions on Russia after the February 2022 invasion knew and understood the "price hike".
People, such as myself, who supported efforts to aid Ukraine and thwart Russia did not complain because it was viewed as a price well worth paying.
The corollary to that is that those who either supported Russia, opposed aid to Ukraine, (or both), used the spike in gas prices as a criticism of the actions taken.

I won't reopen some of the reasoning involved in materially supporting Ukraine, but to imply that "none of them complained" was due to some sort of domestic partisanship rah-rah is wrong.
Many understood clearly what was at stake. They knew that it would take some degree of distress/pain in order to preserve one of the signal achievements of post WW2 governance.
With that understanding in mind, it would have been rather stupid to complain about gas prices, would it not?

Winning in Ukraine means a Kremlin abiding by terms and Kiev accepting loss of a finger is preferable to life without hands. In the Gulf, crystal clear, no bomb capacity or attempt to acquire one from outside sources. Kicking the can on either is losing.

We don't import much if any oil from the Gulf.

But, that doesn't matter.

We import a lot of fertilizer and the price of Jet fuel is up 88%. Our economy is not insulated from the voluntary destruction we are causing.

So let's see, in June 2025, the individual occupying the Oval Office stated that "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated." That is a direct quote.

The individual calling himself the "Secretary of War" stated, and I quote, "Our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons. Our massive bombs hit exactly the right spot at each target and worked perfectly. The impact of those bombs is buried under a mountain of rubble in Iran; so anyone who says the bombs were not devastating is just trying to undermine the President and the successful mission.”

The White House's own page, as you all can see for yourself, stated "Iran's Nuclear Faclities Have Been Obliterated -- And Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News."

Yet the primary justification given for this current "Excursion" is that Iran was moments away from attacking us and Israel with nuclear weapons. To quote the same individual occupying the White House: "

So, MAGA fans. One of these sets of statements is a baldfaced lie. Both statements cannot be true at the same time. Which one do you believe?

So now we attack civilian infrastructure (power plants) if Iran doesn’t open up the SOH.






Hilariously pathetic.

100% perfectly said. You won’t get an answer. It’s easier to say you have TDS.

I can’t believe I’m weighing in here, but is it not possible that the best assessment/belief at the time was that the Fordow facilities were destroyed/obliterated, and that sometime later - after Iran doubled or tripled their efforts and went all in - got to a point where intel proved that earlier assessment obsolete, or even wrong in hindsight? It doesn’t make one or the other a lie, necessarily. Hyperbole is this president’s love language, btw. Just answering the question in good faith that you actually are seeking a plausible answer.