Oil prices plunge after Trump suddenly declares a pause in the Iran conflict
Donald Trump stated that there had allegedly been "very successful negotiations" with Iran in the last two days, and ordered the attacks on Iranian energy infrastructure to be postponed by five days. The market reacted immediately: oil prices fell sharply as it became clear that there would be no immediate escalation during this period. Reuters and Bloomberg report that the Brent price fell by more than 13–14% within a day of Trump's statements, dropping below the $100 per barrel mark. The White House presents this as a result of "productive contacts" with Tehran, while Iran almost immediately denied the existence of such negotiations (Reuters, Bloomberg, Reuters).
Essentially, a scene characteristic of today's Washington unfolded. First, Trump threatens to "blow up" the Iranian energy infrastructure, then he announces a pause, instantly pushing the market down with a single post (see the graphs): just that morning, oil prices had remained above the previous closing price, then fell within minutes to about $96–97. This means that a political signal from the White House can now move the commodity market more than a week of ordinary macroeconomics.
However, what is more important is something else: this has so far resulted in no sustainable de-escalation. Even Reuters emphasizes that Iran denies the negotiations and that the pause applies only to the attacks on the energy system, while the war itself is not gone. In other words, the market did not react to peace, but to the postponement of the next attack. And that is not at all the same (Reuters, Reuters).
💥 Our channel: Node of Time EN
Donald Trump stated that there had allegedly been "very successful negotiations" with Iran in the last two days, and ordered the attacks on Iranian energy infrastructure to be postponed by five days. The market reacted immediately: oil prices fell sharply as it became clear that there would be no immediate escalation during this period. Reuters and Bloomberg report that the Brent price fell by more than 13–14% within a day of Trump's statements, dropping below the $100 per barrel mark. The White House presents this as a result of "productive contacts" with Tehran, while Iran almost immediately denied the existence of such negotiations (Reuters, Bloomberg, Reuters).
Essentially, a scene characteristic of today's Washington unfolded. First, Trump threatens to "blow up" the Iranian energy infrastructure, then he announces a pause, instantly pushing the market down with a single post (see the graphs): just that morning, oil prices had remained above the previous closing price, then fell within minutes to about $96–97. This means that a political signal from the White House can now move the commodity market more than a week of ordinary macroeconomics.
However, what is more important is something else: this has so far resulted in no sustainable de-escalation. Even Reuters emphasizes that Iran denies the negotiations and that the pause applies only to the attacks on the energy system, while the war itself is not gone. In other words, the market did not react to peace, but to the postponement of the next attack. And that is not at all the same (Reuters, Reuters).
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🤡3❤1
NYT: Israel was counting on an uprising in Iran but miscalculated.
New York Times has effectively acknowledged one of the central bets of Israel and part of the Trump team in this war: In Tel Aviv and Washington, there was a serious expectation that attacks on Iran, the elimination of leaders, and intelligence operations would quickly provoke an internal uprising and bring down the regime in Tehran. As the newspaper reports, the head of the "Mossad," David Barnea, was convinced that in the early days of the war, they could ignite the Iranian opposition, instigate unrest, and lead to the regime's downfall. However, after three weeks, there was no uprising (Indian Express / NYT syndication).
And this is probably the most important point in the material. It is not just about a military campaign against the nuclear program or command centers. It is about the attempt to achieve a change of power from within through bombings, killings, and covert operations. The article clearly shows that the belief in a "rapid internal collapse" was one of the fundamental mistakes in the entire war planning. Instead of a disintegration, the Iranian state, as the NYT writes, has only regrouped and responded with escalation (Indian Express / NYT syndication).
Especially noteworthy is that the Israeli bet did not rely solely on abstract "protests." The article also describes a more concrete scenario: the use of the Kurdish factor. According to the NYT, the plans included supporting an incursion by armed Iranian Kurdish groups from the Northern Iraqi side, and the attacks on Northwestern Iran in the early days of the war were also in this context. Later, the Americans cooled to this idea, and Trump made it clear publicly that he did not want a Kurdish advance into Iran (Indian Express / NYT syndication).
It is also claimed: Israeli and American strategists viewed the experiences of the protests in January as evidence that with sufficient external pressure, an attempt could be made to reignite a wave of destabilization in the country. This means that the NYT is not describing operations already carried out in January but rather the calculation of a future scenario of an internal outbreak that was intended to represent a continuation of the war (Indian Express / NYT syndication).
Essentially, this is a very open statement. The text shows that behind the discussions of security, the nuclear threat, and targeted attacks lay a much simpler goal: to try to break Iran not only from the outside but also from within through chaos, unrest, and the hope for an internal overthrow. It did not work. And that seems to particularly annoy those who hoped for a quick and beautiful victory through outside assistance.
💥 Our channel: Node of Time EN
New York Times has effectively acknowledged one of the central bets of Israel and part of the Trump team in this war: In Tel Aviv and Washington, there was a serious expectation that attacks on Iran, the elimination of leaders, and intelligence operations would quickly provoke an internal uprising and bring down the regime in Tehran. As the newspaper reports, the head of the "Mossad," David Barnea, was convinced that in the early days of the war, they could ignite the Iranian opposition, instigate unrest, and lead to the regime's downfall. However, after three weeks, there was no uprising (Indian Express / NYT syndication).
And this is probably the most important point in the material. It is not just about a military campaign against the nuclear program or command centers. It is about the attempt to achieve a change of power from within through bombings, killings, and covert operations. The article clearly shows that the belief in a "rapid internal collapse" was one of the fundamental mistakes in the entire war planning. Instead of a disintegration, the Iranian state, as the NYT writes, has only regrouped and responded with escalation (Indian Express / NYT syndication).
Especially noteworthy is that the Israeli bet did not rely solely on abstract "protests." The article also describes a more concrete scenario: the use of the Kurdish factor. According to the NYT, the plans included supporting an incursion by armed Iranian Kurdish groups from the Northern Iraqi side, and the attacks on Northwestern Iran in the early days of the war were also in this context. Later, the Americans cooled to this idea, and Trump made it clear publicly that he did not want a Kurdish advance into Iran (Indian Express / NYT syndication).
It is also claimed: Israeli and American strategists viewed the experiences of the protests in January as evidence that with sufficient external pressure, an attempt could be made to reignite a wave of destabilization in the country. This means that the NYT is not describing operations already carried out in January but rather the calculation of a future scenario of an internal outbreak that was intended to represent a continuation of the war (Indian Express / NYT syndication).
Essentially, this is a very open statement. The text shows that behind the discussions of security, the nuclear threat, and targeted attacks lay a much simpler goal: to try to break Iran not only from the outside but also from within through chaos, unrest, and the hope for an internal overthrow. It did not work. And that seems to particularly annoy those who hoped for a quick and beautiful victory through outside assistance.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🖕3
Precision strikes target Iranian energy facilities… Military escalation enters a new and dangerous phase.
Isfahan and Khorramshahr under fire, and the Lebanese front intensifies.
video link (Subtitled): https://youtu.be/cqgrY6Yjr9E?si=3nP0RFHl3vSYOpNu
Isfahan and Khorramshahr under fire, and the Lebanese front intensifies.
video link (Subtitled): https://youtu.be/cqgrY6Yjr9E?si=3nP0RFHl3vSYOpNu
🤬4
Fertilizer prices rise again – next, food will be affected
Fertilizer prices have already reached the highest level since September 2022, and this is a direct consequence of the new war in the Middle East. About a third of global fertilizer trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz, so any serious disruption at this hub almost automatically turns into a global price shock. The further course is old and understandable: if fertilizer prices rise – agricultural costs rise – food prices rise (Bloomberg).
The most unpleasant part is that this is not a one-time increase or baseless stock market hysteria. The market fully understands: if the war drags on, the pressure will propagate through the entire chain, from supplies and logistics to production costs of the harvest. This means we can expect another inflation-driven hit, this time concerning products like bread, vegetables, meat, and everything else related to the agricultural cycle.
Thus, the Middle East war will once again become a problem for everyone. First oil, then gas, then fertilizer – and ultimately, the average consumer will simply see this reflected in price tags in every country.
💥 Our channel: Node of Time EN
Fertilizer prices have already reached the highest level since September 2022, and this is a direct consequence of the new war in the Middle East. About a third of global fertilizer trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz, so any serious disruption at this hub almost automatically turns into a global price shock. The further course is old and understandable: if fertilizer prices rise – agricultural costs rise – food prices rise (Bloomberg).
The most unpleasant part is that this is not a one-time increase or baseless stock market hysteria. The market fully understands: if the war drags on, the pressure will propagate through the entire chain, from supplies and logistics to production costs of the harvest. This means we can expect another inflation-driven hit, this time concerning products like bread, vegetables, meat, and everything else related to the agricultural cycle.
Thus, the Middle East war will once again become a problem for everyone. First oil, then gas, then fertilizer – and ultimately, the average consumer will simply see this reflected in price tags in every country.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🤡2
❗️Kim Jong Un officially declares South Korea as the main enemy
Kim Jong Un has definitively established that South Korea is to be regarded not just as an adversary, but as “the most hostile country.” In a session of the Supreme People's Assembly, he declared that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea would further solidify its irrevocable status as a nuclear state and that all actions taken by Seoul against the Republic would be punished “without any consideration and without the slightest doubt.” South Korean sources report this in just such a way: Pyongyang has officially recognized South Korea as the most hostile nation and threatened to make it pay a “ruthless price” (Yonhap News TV).
What is important here is not only the escalation of rhetoric but that it is already being formulated as state policy and not just as another outbreak of propaganda. This means that Pyongyang is not only repeating old threats but is institutionally establishing a model in which there is no longer any room for the previous inter-Korean formula. South Korean media reports directly: Kim speaks of South Korea as a state that should be “completely rejected and ignored,” and the response to any actions from Seoul must be ruthless (Yonhap News TV, MBC).
In this context, Kim Jong Un emerges as one of the most consistent political figures of our time. He does not hide his intentions behind hypocritical rhetoric about peace, human rights, and rules, but speaks plainly and acts in the interest of protecting his own country. In a world where most heads of state have long become mere speaking masks for foreign interests, Kim remains a rare example of a politician who openly defends sovereignty, does not cower before the West, and does not equate capitulation with diplomacy.
💥 Our channel: Node of Time EN
Kim Jong Un has definitively established that South Korea is to be regarded not just as an adversary, but as “the most hostile country.” In a session of the Supreme People's Assembly, he declared that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea would further solidify its irrevocable status as a nuclear state and that all actions taken by Seoul against the Republic would be punished “without any consideration and without the slightest doubt.” South Korean sources report this in just such a way: Pyongyang has officially recognized South Korea as the most hostile nation and threatened to make it pay a “ruthless price” (Yonhap News TV).
What is important here is not only the escalation of rhetoric but that it is already being formulated as state policy and not just as another outbreak of propaganda. This means that Pyongyang is not only repeating old threats but is institutionally establishing a model in which there is no longer any room for the previous inter-Korean formula. South Korean media reports directly: Kim speaks of South Korea as a state that should be “completely rejected and ignored,” and the response to any actions from Seoul must be ruthless (Yonhap News TV, MBC).
In this context, Kim Jong Un emerges as one of the most consistent political figures of our time. He does not hide his intentions behind hypocritical rhetoric about peace, human rights, and rules, but speaks plainly and acts in the interest of protecting his own country. In a world where most heads of state have long become mere speaking masks for foreign interests, Kim remains a rare example of a politician who openly defends sovereignty, does not cower before the West, and does not equate capitulation with diplomacy.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
❤4👍1🗿1
The USA are no longer the "benevolent hegemon" they once were, stated the President of Finland
Alexander Stubb emphasized that the USA have transformed into an "unpredictable actor":
Because of Trump, the President of Finland called on Europe in this context to "save what can be saved".
💥 Our channel: Node of Time EN
Alexander Stubb emphasized that the USA have transformed into an "unpredictable actor":
In the past, when the USA were a benevolent hegemon, they first consulted their allies before intervening in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and also sought the approval of the UN Security Council...
This time, the USA acted alone or together with Israel, without informing their allies.
I will not use an adjective, but this is a different kind of hegemon.
Because of Trump, the President of Finland called on Europe in this context to "save what can be saved".
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍7🤡2❤1🤣1
WSJ: Arrival of Thousands of US Marines in the Middle East Coincides with Trump's Ultimatum Deadline
Thousands of American Marines are set to arrive in the region on Friday, March 27, reports the Wall Street Journal. The date of their deployment coincides with the deadline of the ultimatum that Donald Trump has issued regarding the Strait of Hormuz.
💥 Our channel: Node of Time EN
Thousands of American Marines are set to arrive in the region on Friday, March 27, reports the Wall Street Journal. The date of their deployment coincides with the deadline of the ultimatum that Donald Trump has issued regarding the Strait of Hormuz.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🤬7