19H·

Commodities | Potential ceasefire?

According to media reports, a 15-point plan was passed on to Iran by the USA, but this has not been fully verified. Apparently, Iran also had a preference to negotiate with Vance and Rubio, but did not officially commit to anything. Either way, as you can see, Iran has higher leverage.

However, the 15-point plan includes a ban on uranium enrichment. Now also note that the stated reason the Trump Admin launched the offensive was enrichment itself. It turns and you get back to what triggered the war, and Iran will definitely not agree to the point. If Trump were to remove that item from the list now, it would be a major strategic defeat, because the strategic goal of stopping uranium enrichment would not even have been achieved. Iran currently has the momentum. Trump is actively looking for an exit, which he knows he cannot actually afford and yet he is trying.

Accordingly, we can assume that the war will continue. It is not for nothing that the 82nd Airborne Division with around 1000 soldiers has now been sent to the Persian Gulf. $IOIL00 (-1.82%) jumped down accordingly. Whether Iran wants to negotiate at all is of course also a question that I would answer with a rather negative answer (leverage).

13 Comments

Hennington Global@HenningtonGlobal

19H

Note: Iran would not agree to the other points either (I think)

•

BeachPlease@BeachPlease

18H

The good old blue-purple line chart from Tradingview :)
On the topic: The double bottom has been broken, Asia sold off...

•

Smudo@Smudeo

15H

@BeachPlease Asia all markets are green: I stand at 04 o'clock

••

Olli@Olli68

14H

According to Oman, Iran had already agreed not to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons during the negotiations shortly before the war.

•

Hennington Global@HenningtonGlobal

10H

@Olli68 Nevertheless, it was the objective reason for war that the USA cited

••

Olli@Olli68

@HenningtonGlobal Yes, like back then in Iraq. 😁

It also came out later that Powell was lying.

•

Cash B.@Lumimyrsky

13H

I don't think Iran doesn't want to negotiate. The risk of losing relatively quickly with the deployment of ground troops would be too high

•

Hennington Global@HenningtonGlobal

10H

@Lumimyrsky Iran has already refused, and we are not talking about a classic ground offensive, but about the occupation of the island of kharg

•

NichtRelevant@NichtRelevant

13H

The good man has gotten himself into a huge mess. The very idea that a country ruled by religious fanatics (whose religious leader has just been killed) would simply sit down at the negotiating table again after a massive bombardment is crazy.

1000 men from some airborne division is a drop in the ocean. If he wants to end this, he needs a deployment of ground troops like in the first Iraq war.

But it's a good thing that he has so much expertise in this area and not a defense minister, but a war minister.

•

Hennington Global@HenningtonGlobal

10H

@NichtRelevant no, it's not a classic ground offensive, but the occupation of the island of kharg

•

NichtRelevant@NichtRelevant

@HenningtonGlobal Okay. The island is one thing, the strait is another.

The question then is what effect an occupation of the island will have if the strait is still impassable. Of course you then have additional leverage, but I think it's questionable whether that will lead to a solution to the conflict.

•

Hennington Global@HenningtonGlobal

@NichtRelevant I would largely agree with you. Control over Kharg would give the US leverage, but it would not automatically stabilize or secure the situation in the Strait of Hormuz. Precisely because of the geographical and military conditions, the passage remains vulnerable regardless of this.

The effect would therefore be more economic pressure on Iran, as a large proportion of its oil exports pass through Kharg. It is a legitimate attempt, but not a legitimate guarantee.

•

Sir Tow Mater@Mater

12H

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/israel-strikes-tehran-trump-says-us-negotiating-end-war-2026-03-25/

•