Oil prices climbed on Wednesday as markets awaited a potential record release of emergency crude reserves by the International Energy Agency, while escalating tensions around the Strait of Hormuz continued to threaten one of the world’s most critical energy shipping routes.

Global benchmark Brent crude rose about 2% to $89.49 a barrel in early trading, after briefly surging above $92 earlier in the session. U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude gained roughly 2.4% to $85.44 a barrel, paring back some of its earlier gains as traders assessed the potential scale of emergency oil supply injections.

The market’s focus has shifted to a coordinated response from the world’s largest industrialized economies following disruptions caused by the intensifying conflict between the United States and Iran.

Energy ministers from the Group of Seven met in Paris on Tuesday to discuss the impact of the conflict on global oil and gas markets. The fighting has already disrupted regional energy production and led to a blockade and security threats along the Strait of Hormuz — a narrow passageway through which roughly a fifth of global oil supplies normally pass.

According to a report by Reuters, the IEA is preparing to recommend the release of more than 100 million barrels of oil from strategic reserves during the first month of the intervention. If implemented, the move would represent one of the largest emergency oil releases ever coordinated by the agency.

The proposal would surpass the 182 million barrels released by IEA member countries following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which previously marked the largest coordinated release of strategic reserves.

In a statement shared with Bloomberg, G7 energy ministers said they supported “the implementation of proactive measures to address the situation, including the use of strategic reserves.”

IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said member countries currently hold more than 1.2 billion barrels of government-controlled emergency oil reserves, with an additional 600 million barrels stored by industry under government obligations.

“In oil markets, conditions have deteriorated in recent days,” Birol said, pointing to transit challenges in key shipping lanes and a sharp curtailment of oil production in parts of the Middle East.

“This is creating significant and growing risks for the market,” he added. “We discussed all the available options, including making IEA emergency oil stocks available to the market.”

Separately, Sanae Takaichi, the prime minister of Japan, told reporters Wednesday that Tokyo plans to independently release oil from its own strategic reserves as early as Monday to help stabilize global supply.

The heightened focus on emergency stockpiles indicates growing anxiety that shipping through the Strait of Hormuz could remain disrupted for an extended period. Several commercial vessels have been attacked off Iran’s coast in recent days, raising fears among shipping companies and insurers. Tanker and cargo traffic through the strait has slowed significantly as security risks escalate.

Overnight reports indicated that American forces had sunk several Iranian vessels — including 16 ships believed to be minelayers — near the shipping corridor.

Further signs of escalation emerged on Wednesday when the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations said three cargo ships off Iran’s coast had been struck by projectiles. One of the vessels was reportedly hit while transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

Authorities in Dubai also reported that two drones fell near Dubai International Airport, injuring four people and forcing a temporary closure of the surrounding airspace.

Energy analysts say the future direction of oil prices will depend heavily on how long the conflict continues and whether safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz can be restored.

“The critical factor remains the war’s duration,” said Sasha Foss, an energy market analyst at Marex.

“These releases of the IEA’s stocks buy us a few days, but in reality it all depends on the opening of the Strait of Hormuz,” Foss said, warning that if the conflict drags on, oil prices could quickly climb above $100 a barrel.

Market volatility has already been heightened by misinformation surrounding developments in the region. On Tuesday, oil prices briefly plunged after a social media post from Chris Wright, the U.S. Secretary of Energy, mistakenly suggested that the U.S. Navy had escorted a tanker through the strait.

The statement was later corrected after Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, told reporters that the Navy had “not escorted a tanker or a vessel at this time.”

Analysts say the situation highlights how sensitive energy markets have become to developments in the Middle East, particularly around the Strait of Hormuz. Even a temporary disruption in the passage can send shockwaves through global energy markets because the waterway handles massive volumes of crude exports from major producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates.

Paul Gooden, head of global natural resources at Ninety One, said that while oil prices could ease if tensions cool, the market is unlikely to return to the lower price range seen earlier in the year.

“If tensions de-escalate in the coming weeks, oil prices could retreat,” Gooden said. “But even in that scenario, it is unlikely prices will return to the $60–$70 range seen earlier this year.”

He warned that a prolonged disruption would have much more serious consequences.

“If the disruption lasts longer, oil prices could spike further — potentially above $120 or even higher — until higher prices begin to curb demand.”

Traders are currently watching to see whether the IEA’s coordinated release of emergency reserves will be enough to calm markets — or merely buy time while the geopolitical crisis in the Gulf continues to unfold.

As competition intensifies in the global electric vehicle market, Chinese automaker BYD Company is weighing an unconventional new arena to strengthen its brand: international motorsport.

People familiar with the discussions quoted by SCMP say the EV manufacturer is examining options to enter top-tier racing series, including Formula One and the FIA World Endurance Championship. The evaluation is seen as part of a broader effort by the company to elevate its global profile as it battles rivals such as Tesla for leadership in the fast-growing electric vehicle industry.

The potential pathways under consideration range from launching a Formula 1 team from scratch to acquiring an existing operation or entering endurance racing, which includes the historic 24 Hours of Le Mans. Any move would mark a rare attempt by a Chinese automaker to compete directly in a sport traditionally dominated by European and American manufacturers.

No decision has been made, and the company could ultimately decide against entering motorsport, according to the people, who asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations.

A new front in the global EV rivalry

The interest in motorsport reflects the evolving nature of competition among electric vehicle manufacturers.

BYD has rapidly emerged as one of the most powerful forces in the global EV market. The company recently surpassed Tesla to become the world’s largest seller of electric vehicles, propelled by strong demand for its battery-electric and plug-in hybrid models across China and international markets.

Yet while BYD has excelled in manufacturing scale and affordability, Tesla has long dominated the global EV narrative through its technology leadership, performance branding, and strong visibility in Western markets.

Entering global racing could therefore serve as another frontier for BYD in that rivalry, offering a platform to showcase engineering capabilities and high-performance technology while boosting brand recognition outside China.

Motorsport has historically played this role for many automakers. Participation in elite racing series often allows manufacturers to demonstrate innovation, durability, and speed under extreme conditions—attributes that can strengthen the appeal of road-going vehicles.

Chinese carmakers have only occasionally ventured into international motorsport. For instance, Geely has achieved success in touring car championships through Cyan Racing, the team that evolved from Volvo’s former factory racing operation.

Meanwhile, Nio made an early mark in electric racing when its team secured the drivers’ championship in the inaugural season of Formula E in 2015.

However, Formula 1 and endurance racing remain among the most technologically demanding and globally visible motorsport competitions, making them far more ambitious targets.

High costs remain a major hurdle

One of the biggest obstacles to a Formula 1 entry is the cost. Developing and operating a competitive team requires years of engineering development, aerodynamic research, and manufacturing investment. Industry estimates suggest the total cost of entering and competing in Formula 1 can reach as much as $500 million per season.

The sport also imposes strict entry requirements and financial rules designed to maintain competitive balance. Existing teams often resist the addition of new entrants because it dilutes the share of prize money distributed across the championship.

This year marks the debut season for Cadillac, which joined the Formula 1 grid after years of negotiations and regulatory approvals.

Because launching a new team is so complex, many automakers prefer to enter the sport by acquiring or partnering with an existing organization.

German manufacturer Audi, for example, recently joined Formula 1 by taking full control of the Swiss-based racing outfit Sauber. Elsewhere, investment firm Otro Capital is exploring potential buyers for its stake in Alpine Racing, the Formula 1 team owned by Renault.

Full team sales remain uncommon, though. The Aston Martin F1 Team—controlled by billionaire investor Lawrence Stroll—has sold minority stakes to investors while maintaining overall control.

Motorsport technology aligns with EV innovation

Another factor making racing more attractive for an electric vehicle manufacturer is the technological direction of modern motorsport. Formula 1 will introduce new power-unit regulations in 2026 that significantly increase the role of hybrid systems and battery capacity, bringing the sport closer to electrified vehicle technology.

Similarly, the FIA World Endurance Championship already relies heavily on hybrid powertrains in its top racing category.

These developments allow manufacturers to experiment with advanced energy management systems, battery technologies, and hybrid powertrains that can eventually influence road-car development.

For BYD, the potential move into motorsport also aligns with its broader efforts to reposition its brand. The company is widely known for producing affordable electric vehicles, but it has increasingly moved into the premium segment through high-performance and luxury models.

Its luxury division, Yangwang, has become central to that strategy. In 2025, the brand tested the high-performance Yangwang U9 Xtreme at a German track, where the vehicle reportedly achieved speeds exceeding 308 mph (496 km/h).

Participation in motorsport could reinforce that performance-oriented image and help shift perceptions of the company from a mass-market EV producer to a technologically advanced automotive brand.

Expanding global visibility

Motorsport could also help BYD build recognition in regions where it is still establishing its presence. The company has been at the forefront of China’s push into overseas automotive markets, expanding sales across Europe, Latin America, and parts of Asia.

However, it currently does not sell passenger vehicles in the United States, largely because of tariffs and regulatory barriers.

Formula 1 could nonetheless offer a valuable marketing platform in the country, where the sport has experienced a surge in popularity following the success of the Netflix series Formula 1: Drive to Survive and the addition of multiple U.S. races to the calendar.

Interest in Formula 1 within China itself has also grown in recent years. The Chinese Grand Prix returned to the calendar in Shanghai in 2024 after a five-year absence, while Zhou Guanyu became the first full-time Chinese driver in Formula 1 in 2022.

The sport’s governing body, the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile, has also shown openness to greater Chinese participation. Its president, Mohammed Ben Sulayem, said last year that the arrival of a Chinese manufacturer would be a logical next step for the sport following the entry of Cadillac.

For now, BYD’s motorsport ambitions remain in the exploratory stage. Entering global racing would require enormous financial commitment and long-term planning. Yet for a company rapidly expanding its global footprint—and competing with Tesla for technological leadership and brand prestige—the marketing and engineering benefits could be substantial.

A group of engineers and researchers from two of the world’s most influential artificial intelligence companies has stepped into the legal battle between Anthropic and the U.S. government, filing a court brief that supports the AI firm’s challenge to a national security designation imposed by the Pentagon.

The filing, submitted as an amicus curiae brief — commonly referred to as a “friend of the court” submission — backs Anthropic’s effort to overturn a government decision branding the company a “supply chain risk to national security” and restricting major firms from working with it.

Anthropic on Monday launched two lawsuits contesting the authority of the U.S. Department of Defense to impose the designation, arguing the move could devastate its business and damage its standing across the fast-growing artificial intelligence industry.

The amicus brief supporting the company carries the signatures of 37 professionals described as engineers, researchers, and scientists working at Google and OpenAI — a rare show of support from individuals tied to companies that are themselves competitors in the AI race.

Among the most prominent signatories is Jeff Dean, Google’s chief scientist and one of the most influential engineers in the modern AI ecosystem.

In high-stakes litigation involving technology and national security, courts often receive multiple amicus briefs from outside groups seeking to influence the legal debate. But the intervention of researchers connected to rival companies adds unusual weight to the filing, underscoring broader industry concerns about the implications of the government’s decision.

The brief advances three core arguments.

First, the signatories defend Anthropic’s stance on what the company has described as its “red lines” for artificial intelligence development — particularly its refusal to support technologies enabling mass surveillance or fully autonomous lethal weapons systems.

According to the filing, Anthropic was justified in maintaining those restrictions, even if they conflicted with certain government expectations regarding defense-related AI applications.

The second and third arguments focus on the broader implications for the technology sector.

The amici contend that the government’s move to label the company a supply chain risk represents an “improper and arbitrary use of power,” warning that the precedent could affect the entire AI industry if left unchecked.

They argue that punishing companies for drawing ethical boundaries around how their technology can be used could discourage responsible research and development across the sector.

Beyond Dean, the brief includes signatures from several other engineers and researchers linked to Google and OpenAI, including Grant Birkinbine, a security engineer at OpenAI; Sanjeev Dhanda, a software engineer at Google; Leo Gao, a technical staff member at OpenAI; Zach Parent, a forward-deployed engineer at OpenAI; Kathy Korevec, director of product at Google Labs; and Ian McKenzie, a research engineer at Google.

Their participation signals growing unease among AI professionals about how governments may seek to control the deployment of advanced machine-learning systems, particularly in defense and surveillance contexts.

The legal fight has unfolded against a backdrop of intensifying competition between major AI developers and rising government interest in harnessing artificial intelligence for national security purposes.

The Pentagon has increasingly sought partnerships with technology companies to develop AI tools for intelligence analysis, logistics, cybersecurity, and battlefield decision-making. At the same time, several firms have attempted to establish ethical boundaries governing the use of their models.

Anthropic’s dispute with the Pentagon appears to have emerged partly from those boundaries. The company has drawn attention for its policy restrictions aimed at preventing its AI models from being used in certain military or surveillance applications.

Those policies reportedly became a source of friction with defense officials and ultimately contributed to the controversial designation now being challenged in court.

Executives at Anthropic have warned that the blacklist could erase billions of dollars from projected revenue and disrupt relationships with corporate and government customers alike.

The controversy has also prompted public criticism from leaders of rival AI companies.

Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, said shortly after the government decision became public that he believed the move was misguided.

“To say it very clearly: I think this is a very bad decision from the DoW and I hope they reverse it,” Altman wrote on the social platform X in late February. “If we take heat for strongly criticizing it, so be it.”

At the same time, Altman acknowledged that his company’s own expanding relationship with the Pentagon — including a defense-related agreement announced around the same time the dispute with Anthropic escalated — “looked opportunistic and sloppy.”

The outcome of the case could carry far-reaching implications for the rapidly evolving artificial intelligence industry.

If the government’s designation is upheld, technology companies may face new pressures to align their AI policies with national security priorities in order to maintain access to government contracts and avoid regulatory scrutiny.

If Anthropic prevails, the decision could reinforce the ability of AI firms to impose their own ethical restrictions on how powerful machine-learning systems are deployed — a debate that sits at the center of the global race to shape the future of artificial intelligence.