Truth Social as a Trigger: Trump’s Direct Threat to Iran
On the morning of March 26, Donald Trump posted a message on his Truth Social platform, demanding that Iran “get serious before it’s too late.” The wording leaves no room for ambiguity: “Once this is done, there will be no going back, and it will be terrible,” writes the American president.
This statement comes as indirect diplomatic channels are reportedly active between Washington and Tehran, according to Pakistani authorities who are serving as mediators. The contrast between the presidential message’s threatening tone and the existence of behind-the-scenes discussions immediately increases the nervousness in oil markets. The Brent reacts within the hour, accelerating a bullish movement that had started the day before.
This is not the first time a Donald Trump social media post has caused a measurable price movement in the oil market. However, the combination of an explicit ultimatum and a delicate negotiation context gives this sequence a particular intensity.
The Chronology of a Surge: from Ultimatum Postponement to Price Rebound
To understand the Brent’s movement between March 23 and 26, we need to look at the factual sequence. The weekend before March 23, Donald Trump postponed an ultimatum to Iran. The markets interpreted this gesture as a sign of de-escalation. The price of Brent then dropped back below $100, an important psychological threshold for operators.
On March 25, Iran officially denied any negotiations with the United States. This denial shattered the brief narrative of calm that had temporarily pushed prices down. The Brent resumed its upward trend. The next day, Trump’s new pressure on Truth Social further amplified the movement. By noon on March 26, the barrel was priced at $106.
In three days, the price of oil experienced a round trip of over six dollars, driven not by fundamental data on supply or demand, but by political statements and their denials. This sequence illustrates a well-documented mechanism in commodity markets: the volatility induced by geopolitical uncertainty, where each contradictory signal amplifies price fluctuations.
Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt: Quiet Mediation Behind the Scenes
Beyond the verbal escalation lies a more discreet diplomatic game. Pakistan’s Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ishaq Dar, publicly confirms on the social network X that Islamabad is acting as an intermediary between Washington and Tehran. “Indirect discussions between the United States and Iran are taking place through messages transmitted by Pakistan,” he writes, while calling speculations about “peace talks” “useless.”
The content of these exchanges remains largely opaque, but one concrete element emerges: the United States has conveyed 15 points to Iran through Pakistan. These points are, according to Ishaq Dar, “currently being examined” by Tehran. The exact nature of these proposals has not been made public at this stage.
Pakistan is not acting alone. Ishaq Dar specifies that “sibling countries such as Turkey and Egypt, among others, are also supporting this initiative.” This informal diplomatic coalition thus brings together three regional powers with distinct relationships with Washington and Tehran, giving it a certain credibility as a mediation channel. However, the Iranian denial of the actual existence of negotiations casts doubt on the real impact of these efforts.
Why Does Brent React So Violently to Political Statements?
The oil market is structurally sensitive to tensions involving Iran, as it remains one of the main producers and controls, along with the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic passage through which about a fifth of the world’s oil passes. Any threat, even verbal, to the continuity of these flows immediately affects prices.
The volatility observed between March 23 and 26, 2025, does not reflect a change in volumes produced or consumed. It reflects a permanent reevaluation of risk by market operators. Postponing an ultimatum reduces the geopolitical risk premium integrated into prices. Denying negotiations increases it. A threatening message accentuates it even further.
This dynamic creates an environment in which classic fundamentals – stocks, production, demand – temporarily take a back seat. It is the political signals, their timing, and their credibility that dictate daily fluctuations. The ongoing sequence, with on one side a tripartite mediation effort by Pakistan, Turkey, and Egypt, and on the other a US president publicly hardening his tone, keeps the market in a state of high uncertainty. Each new statement, each denial, each diplomatic leak is capable of triggering a significant price movement.
