Geopolitical Thaw: Markets Rally as Trump Signals “End Game” in Iran Conflict

**Trump Iran deal: Brent crude drops 6% as president declares “end game” near in nuclear standoff**

Muhammad Asghar | GlobalBeat

President Donald Trump told reporters that negotiations with Iran had entered the “end game” phase, sending Brent crude down 6% to $61 per barrel and lifting the S&P 500 by 2.8%.

The comments, made during a brief exchange outside the White House on Tuesday afternoon, marked the clearest signal yet that Washington and Tehran are approaching a final agreement on Iran’s nuclear program after months of indirect talks in Oman.

Oil markets had priced in the possibility of Israeli strikes on Iranian facilities, with prices touching $75 last week. Traders rushed to unwind those bets after Trump’s remarks, erasing $4 billion in value from energy majors ExxonMobil and Chevron in the sharpest one-day decline since October.

Trump said the framework under discussion would limit Iranian enrichment to 3.67% purity, ship out Tehran’s stockpile of 60% enriched uranium, and allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors “unfettered access” to suspected sites. “We’re very close,” the president told reporters. “Closer than we’ve been in 20 years.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed via state media that “substantive progress” had been achieved in Muscat talks, though he cautioned that “several key issues remain unresolved.” The foreign ministry later released a statement saying negotiations would resume “within days” without specifying a venue.

European markets joined the relief rally, with the STOXX 600 gaining 1.9% and renewable energy stocks surging on expectations that Iranian oil would soon return to global markets. Germany’s DAX closed up 2.1% while France’s CAC 40 added 1.7%.

Goldman Sachs commodities analyst Callum Bruce told clients that Iranian exports could rise by 1.3 million barrels daily within six months of any agreement, pushing global prices toward $55. “The market was positioned for conflict,” Bruce wrote. “A diplomatic resolution represents the biggest upside surprise to supply since the 2015 JCPOA.”

The potential breakthrough follows a tense 48-hour period that saw Israel place its military on heightened alert and the Pentagon deploy an additional aircraft carrier to the region. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Tuesday evening that “some forces would begin repositioning” but gave no timeline, noting that “diplomatic progress requires military readiness.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office issued a cautious statement welcoming “any agreement that truly prevents Iranian nuclear weapons” while emphasizing that Israel “retains full freedom of action” to protect itself. The carefully worded response avoided direct criticism of Trump’s approach, marking a shift from earlier Israeli warnings against “appeasement.”

Regional reactions varied sharply. Saudi Arabia’s energy minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman called the developments “positive for global economic stability” during a Riyadh conference, while UAE markets closed at six-month highs. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan offered to host final negotiations in Istanbul, telling reporters that “Turkey stands ready to facilitate peace.”

The potential deal faces significant domestic opposition in both countries. Republican Senator Tom Cotton called any agreement “another Obama-style surrender” on X, while 47 GOP lawmakers signed a letter threatening to block sanctions relief. In Tehran, hardline parliamentarians warned against “trading away revolutionary principles” as former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad demanded public referendum on any accord.

Shipping markets reflected the shifting dynamics, with tanker rates from the Persian Gulf dropping 12% as insurers reduced war risk premiums. The cost of protecting against Iranian supply disruption fell to its lowest level since October, according to data from London’s marine insurance market.

Background

This isn’t the first time Trump has veered from confrontation to negotiation with Tehran. During his first term, the president withdrew from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018 and imposed “maximum pressure” sanctions that cut Iranian oil exports from 2.5 million to under 400,000 barrels daily. The strategy failed to force Iranian capitulation, instead accelerating Tehran’s nuclear program as the country began enriching uranium to 60% purity, far beyond the JCPOA’s 3.67% limit.

The current talks began quietly in January after a Houthi missile attack on a Liberian-flagged tanker killed 3 American contractors, prompting Trump to threaten “decisive action.” Omani mediators proposed backchannel discussions that excluded direct US-Iran contact, instead relying on shuttled proposals between Muscat hotel suites. The framework reportedly includes phased sanctions relief tied to concrete Iranian steps, a marked departure from the upfront concessions that critics say doomed the original JCPOA.

What’s Next

Iranian negotiators are expected to return to Muscat next week with written responses to the latest American proposal, according to diplomats familiar with the process. Any final agreement would require 90-day implementation periods for uranium removal and sanctions waivers, potentially pushing resolution toward June. Trump’s team must also navigate Congressional review requirements under the 2015 Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, giving lawmakers 30 days to examine any accord.

The next 48 hours could prove decisive as Israeli officials study the emerging details. Netanyahu has scheduled emergency consultations with his security cabinet for Wednesday evening, while Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei must personally approve any final compromise. Both leaders face domestic pressure to reject concessions, setting up a tense calculation over whether diplomatic momentum can overcome decades of mutual distrust.

Financial markets will watch Israeli military movements and Iranian compliance steps for signals on whether this represents genuine de-escalation or another false dawn in the cycle of threats and negotiations that has defined US-Iran relations since 1979.