Context: The article discusses the recent statements made by former President Donald Trump on his Truth Social platform regarding Iran, and the impact these statements had on global oil prices.
Fact Check: The content mentions the involvement of Pakistan as a mediator between the U.S. and Iran in potential diplomatic discussions.
—
Truth Social as a catalyst: Trump’s direct threat to Iran
On the morning of March 26, Donald Trump posted a message on his platform Truth Social demanding that Iran “get serious before it’s too late.” The wording leaves no room for ambiguity: “Once that is done, there will be no turning back, and it will be terrible,” the American president wrote.
This statement comes at a time when indirect diplomatic channels are actively engaged between Washington and Tehran, according to Pakistani authorities who are reportedly acting as mediators. The contrast between the presidential message’s menacing tone and the existence of behind-the-scenes discussions immediately raises tension in the oil markets. Brent reacted within the hour, triggering a bullish movement that had already begun the day before.
This is not the first time a social media post by Donald Trump has caused a measurable price movement in the crude oil market. However, the combination of an explicit ultimatum and a context of fragile negotiations gives this sequence a particular intensity.
Chronology of a surge: from ultimatum postponement to price rebound
To understand the Brent movement between March 23 and 26, we need to trace the factual sequence. On the weekend preceding 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 below $100, an important psychological threshold for operators.
On March 25, Iran officially denied the existence of any negotiations with the United States. This denial shattered the temporary narrative of appeasement that had briefly lowered prices. Brent then rose again. The following day, Trump’s new pressure on Truth Social amplified the movement. By noon on March 26, the barrel was displaying at $106.
In three days, the price of oil had experienced a round trip of more than 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: volatility induced by geopolitical uncertainty, where each contradictory signal amplifies price fluctuations.
Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt: discreet mediation behind the scenes
Beyond the verbal escalation, a more discreet diplomatic play is underway. Pakistan’s Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ishaq Dar, publicly confirms on the social network X that Islamabad is playing the role of intermediary between Washington and Tehran. “Indirect discussions between the United States and Iran are taking place through messages transmitted by Pakistan,” he writes, while dismissing speculation about “peace talks” as “futile.”
The content of these exchanges remains largely opaque, but a tangible element emerges: the United States has transmitted 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 “friendly countries like 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, Iran’s denial of the formal existence of negotiations casts a shadow over the actual impact of these efforts.
Why does Brent react so strongly to political statements?
The oil market is structurally sensitive to tensions involving Iran, which remains one of the main producers and controls, along with the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic transit point for about one-fifth of the world’s oil. Any threat, even verbal, to the continuity of these flows immediately impacts prices.
The volatility observed between March 23 and March 26, 2025, does not indicate a change in production or consumption volumes. It reflects a continuous reassessment of risk by market operators. Postponing an ultimatum reduces the geopolitical risk premium integrated into prices. A denial of negotiations raises it. A menacing message accentuates it further.
This dynamic creates an environment in which classical fundamentals – stocks, production, demand – temporarily take a backseat. It is the political signals, their timing, and their credibility that dictate daily variations. The ongoing sequence, with on one side a trilateral mediation effort by Pakistan, Turkey, and Egypt, and on the other a U.S. president publicly hardening his stance, keeps the market in a state of elevated uncertainty. Every new statement, every denial, every diplomatic leak has the potential to trigger a significant price movement.
