Articles

The main focal point today will, of course, be Trump speaking:

• Trump will say the Iran war is “winding down” in address, will criticize NATO

There is still US troop movement to the Middle East so regardless of what he says he might sneak in a ground assault some time over the weekend.

This article was written by Eamonn Sheridan at investinglive.com.

Trump yesterday announced that he will deliver a speech at 9 pm today.

There have been hints and leaks about it all day and now we have another one from Politico that says:

• Trump will declare the war is “winding down”
• He’s expected to claim that all military objectives have been met
• He intends to harshly scapegoat NATO allies for Homuz
• Steve Bannon, Trump’s former White House chief strategist, said the president will essentially declare victory
• Speech may touch on how he intends to move forward if ceasefire talks sputter

Here is what Bannon said:

“Two, three weeks, definable objectives. ‘I came, I saw, I conquered’ — and we are hanging around a couple of weeks to conquer some more — maybe even then a ceasefire, while reiterating that the Hormuz situation is the Gulf Emirates’ and the Europeans’ to solve, and declare victory.”

That’s been hinted at for awhile but for markets, Hormuz is the main issue and we really need to get a sense of where that’s headed.

Another source said:

It needs to be reassuring,” one of the people familiar said. “It needs to be very direct because he’s not just communicating with the American people but the Iranians, our allies in the region and our allies in Europe.”

That’s not exactly his style.

This article was written by Adam Button at investinglive.com.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has released an open letter to the American people, questioning whether Washington is truly putting “America First” or merely acting as a “proxy for Israel” willing to fight “to the last American soldier.”

In the Wednesday message, which traces the roots of US-Iran tensions back to the 1953 coup while condemning recent bombings of Iranian infrastructure, Pezeshkian notes that Tehran harbors no enmity toward ordinary Americans.

Instead, he urges the U.S. populace to look past “manufactured narratives,” arguing that the perceived Iranian threat is an invention of the military-industrial complex and Israeli political interests.

Summary:

Iran’s Historical Identity
Pezeshkian presents Iran as one of the world’s oldest continuous civilizations — one that has never initiated a war in modern history, even when militarily capable of doing so.

Iran-U.S. Relations: Origins & Deterioration
He traces the breakdown to the 1953 U.S.-backed coup against Mosaddegh, followed by support for the Shah, U.S. backing of Saddam Hussein in the 1980s war, and decades of sweeping sanctions.

Iran as a Manufactured Threat
Pezeshkian argues Iran’s threatening image is politically constructed to justify military spending, regional dominance, and arms industry interests — not grounded in Iranian behavior.

Iran’s Domestic Progress Despite Pressure
He points to measurable gains — literacy rising from ~30% to over 90%, advances in technology, healthcare, and infrastructure — as evidence of Iranian resilience and capability.

Critique of U.S. Military Actions
Recent strikes on energy, industrial, and medical facilities are called war crimes that harm civilians and damage America’s global standing.

Israel’s Alleged Role
Pezeshkian directly accuses Israel of manipulating the U.S. into fighting Iran as a proxy war, diverting attention from Palestinian issues at American expense.

Appeal to the American Public
He encourages Americans to look past media narratives and points to Iranian immigrants thriving in Western institutions as a counter-narrative.

Closing Message
Confrontation is framed as historically futile. Pezeshkian positions Iran as enduring and dignified, and calls for a shift toward engagement.

The full text of the president’s letter follows below:

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

To the people of the United States of America, and to all those who, amid a flood of distortions and manufactured narratives, continue to seek the truth and aspire to a better life:

Iran—by this very name, character, and identity—is one of the oldest continuous civilizations in human history. Despite its historical and geographical advantages at various times, Iran has never, in its modern history, chosen the path of aggression, expansion, colonialism, or domination. Even after enduring occupation, invasion, and sustained pressure from global powers—and despite possessing military superiority over many of its neighbors—Iran has never initiated a war. Yet it has resolutely and bravely repelled those who have attacked it.

The Iranian people harbor no enmity toward other nations, including the people of America, Europe, or neighboring countries. Even in the face of repeated foreign interventions and pressures throughout their proud history, Iranians have consistently drawn a clear distinction between governments and the peoples they govern. This is a deeply rooted principle in Iranian culture and collective consciousness—not a temporary political stance.

For this reason, portraying Iran as a threat is neither consistent with historical reality nor with present-day observable facts. Such a perception is the product of political and economic whims of the powerful— the need to manufacture an enemy in order to justify pressure, maintain military dominance, sustain the arms industry, and control strategic markets. In such an environment, if a threat does not exist, it is invented.

Within this same framework, the United States has concentrated the largest number of its forces, bases, and military capabilities around Iran—a country that, at least since the founding of the United States, has never initiated a war. Recent American aggressions launched from these very bases have demonstrated how threatening such a military presence truly is. Naturally, no country confronted with such conditions would forgo strengthening its defensive capabilities. What Iran has done—and continues to do—is a measured response grounded in legitimate self-defense, and by no means an initiation of war or aggression.

Relations between Iran and the United States were not originally hostile, and early interactions between the Iranian and American people were not marred with hostility or tension. The turning point, however, was the 1953 coup d’état—an illegal American intervention aimed at preventing the nationalization of Iran’s own resources. That coup disrupted Iran’s democratic process, reinstated dictatorship, and sowed deep distrust among Iranians toward U.S. policies. This distrust deepened further with America’s support for the Shah’s regime, its backing of Saddam Hussein during the imposed war of the 1980s, the imposition of the longest and most comprehensive sanctions in modern history, and ultimately, unprovoked military aggression—twice, in the midst of negotiations—against Iran.

Yet all these pressures have failed to weaken Iran. On the contrary, the country has grown stronger in many areas: literacy rates have tripled—from roughly 30% before the Islamic Revolution to over 90% today; higher education has expanded dramatically; significant advances have been achieved in modern technology; healthcare services have improved; and infrastructure has developed at a pace and scale incomparable to the past. These are measurable, observable realities that stand independent of fabricated narratives.

At the same time, the destructive and inhumane impact of sanctions, war, and aggression on the lives of the resilient Iranian people must not be underestimated. The continuation of military aggression and recent bombings profoundly affect people’s lives, attitudes, and perspectives. This reflects a fundamental human truth: when war inflicts irreparable harm on lives, homes, cities, and futures, people will not remain indifferent toward those responsible.

This raises a fundamental question: Exactly which of the American people’s interests are truly being served by this war? Was there any objective threat from Iran to justify such behavior? Does the massacre of innocent children, the destruction of cancer-treatment pharmaceutical facilities, or boasting about bombing a country “back to the stone ages” serve any purpose other than further damaging the United States’ global standing?Iran pursued negotiations, reached an agreement, and fulfilled all its commitments. The decision to withdraw from that agreement, escalate toward confrontation, and launch two acts of aggression in the midst of negotiations were destructive choices made by the U.S. government—choices that served the delusions of a foreign aggressor.

Attacking Iran’s vital infrastructure—including energy and industrial facilities—directly targets the Iranian people. Beyond constituting a war crime, such actions carry consequences that extend far beyond Iran’s borders. They generate instability, increase human and economic costs, and perpetuate cycles of tension, planting seeds of resentment that will endure for years. This is not a demonstration of strength; it is a sign of strategic bewilderment and an inability to achieve a sustainable solution.

Is it not also the case that America has entered this aggression as a proxy for Israel, influenced and manipulated by that regime? Is it not true that Israel, by manufacturing an Iranian threat, seeks to divert global attention away from its crimes toward the Palestinians? Is it not evident that Israel now aims to fight Iran to the last American soldier and the last American taxpayer dollar—shifting the burden of its delusions onto Iran, the region, and the United States itself in pursuit of illegitimate interests?

Is “America First” truly among the priorities of the U.S. government today?

I invite you to look beyond the machinery of misinformation—an integral part of this aggression—and instead speak with those who have visited Iran. Observe the many accomplished Iranian immigrants—educated in Iran—who now teach and conduct research at the world’s most prestigious universities, or contribute to the most advanced technology firms in the West. Do these realities align with the distortions you are being told about Iran and its people?

Today, the world stands at crossroads. Continuing along the path of confrontation is more costly and futile than ever before. The choice between confrontation and engagement is both real and consequential; its outcome will shape the future for generations to come. Throughout its millennia of proud history, Iran has outlasted many aggressors. All that remains of them are tarnished names in history, while Iran endures—resilient, dignified, and proud.

This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.

Yesterday, Pres Trump posted on Truth Social:

Today, the French Navy Chief is speaking and saying:

• Number of Chinese vessels going through the Strait of Hormuz not enough to restore normal traffic flows
• China will probably need to engage more directly in the debate and show its impatience on closure of Strait of Hormuz.
• France’s trying to bring several countries together at political level to determine conditions under which the Strait of Hormuz can be reopened in a lasting way.
• Military would ultimately be needed to monitor Hormuz reopening.
• No evidence at this stage that Strait of Hormuz has been mined

French Navy — Current Forces

The Marine Nationale fields a well-rounded modern fleet centered on the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, the only one of its kind outside the US, carrying Rafale M fighters and E-2C Hawkeye aircraft. Its surface fleet includes FREMM multi-mission frigates, La Fayette-class stealth frigates, and Mistral-class amphibious assault ships. Underwater, France operates Triomphant-class ballistic missile submarines (keeping at least one on patrol at all times for nuclear deterrence) alongside the newer Suffren-class nuclear attack submarines, which are gradually replacing the aging Rubis class.

With one of the world’s largest Exclusive Economic Zones, the navy maintains permanent deployments across the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian Ocean, and Caribbean. It also actively participates in NATO operations and EU maritime missions. On the horizon, the FDI frigates are entering service to bolster the surface fleet, and a next-generation carrier (PANG) is in development to replace the Charles de Gaulle around 2038.

This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.

The White House is saying that Pres. Trump is to reiterate 2 – 3 week timetable for the end of the Iran operations.

US official adds:

• Trump to give operational updata on Iran
• To tout success in achieving goals in Iran.
• To reiterate the 2-3 week timetable.

The president is to address the nation at 9 PM ET.

Course how all this ends is anyone’s guess. Israel if it had it’s way would want it to go on until all of Iran was destroyed with the splinter terrorist groups.

Iran doesn’t operate through a single group—it uses a network of proxy and splinter militias across the Middle East, often referred to as part of its broader “Axis of Resistance.”

Core Iran-backed groups (primary proxies)

• Hezbollah (Lebanon)
  • Iran’s most important and longest-standing proxy
  • Highly trained, heavily armed, and politically integrated
• Hamas (Gaza)
  • Sunni group but receives funding, weapons, and training from Iran
• Palestinian Islamic Jihad (Gaza)
  • Smaller, but more directly aligned with Iran than Hamas
• Houthis (Ansar Allah – Yemen)
  • Control large parts of Yemen
  • Use missiles, drones, and maritime attacks

Iraq-based splinter militias (most fragmented network)

• Kataib Hezbollah
• Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq
• Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba
• Badr Organization

Often operate under umbrella labels like:

• “Islamic Resistance in Iraq”

Key point:

• These groups are loosely coordinated but semi-independent, which is why they are often considered splinter networks.

Syria-based militias

• Liwa Fatemiyoun (Afghan fighters backed by Iran)
• Liwa Zainebiyoun (Pakistani fighters)
• Other Shia militias supporting the Assad government

Many are extensions of Iraqi or Hezbollah-linked forces.

Lebanon & regional extensions

• Hezbollah-affiliated units operating beyond Lebanon
  • Syria
  • Iraq
  • Broader regional logistics and finance networks

Yemen (Houthis and sub-groups)

• Houthis are the main force, but include:
  • Local tribal factions and sub-units
  • Increasing coordination with Iranian and Hezbollah support

How Iran manages the network

• Coordinated primarily through the IRGC Quds Force
• Provides:
  • Weapons
  • Training
  • Funding
  • Strategic direction

Big picture takeaway

• Iran’s approach is decentralized:
  • Core proxies (Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis)
  • Plus numerous splinter militias (especially in Iraq and Syria)
• This structure allows:
  • Plausible deniability
  • Multiple pressure points across the region
  • Flexibility in escalation without direct confrontation

Bottom line

• The most recognizable Iran-backed groups are:
  • Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Houthis
• The real fragmentation comes from:
  • Iraqi and Syrian militias, which function as splinter groups with varying degrees of independence
• Together, they form a distributed network that plays a central role in Middle East conflicts

This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.

Reuters is citing a source briefed on the matter:

• The VP has been talking to ‘intermediaries’ about the Iran conflict as recently as Tuesday
• Trump directed Vance to communicate privately that he is open to a ceasefire as long as certain US demands met including reopening Hormuz
• Vance delivered a ‘stern’ message that Trump was impatient and warned of growing pressure on Iran’s infrastructure unless Iran makes a deal

The headlines continue to point to some kind of stalemate. Trump keeps saying Iran wants a ceasefire but this report indicates that it’s Trump that wants a ceasefire.

Separately (and probably not coincidentally), Axios reports that three US officials said discussions are taking place about a possible ceasefire with Iran in return for the reopening of the Hormuz strait. The officials said it is unclear if a deal can be reached.

I think what’s overwhelmingly clear is that the US wants the war to end and is looking for a way to make that happen. They seemingly have Israel on board as well.

Iran seems to be angling for more than a ceasefire and a lasting peace instead. That might be splitting hairs but it’s also not clear who is in charge of Iran and what their next moves might be. It’s also curious that the US is sailing another aircraft carrier into the region and has ground troops ready to invade.

In all likelihood, Iran takes some kind of deal because leaders there have guns to their heads and they surely don’t want to risk the destruction of their energy industry. At the same time, it’s not clear what remaining offensive capabilities they have and their willingness to block Hormuz.

In any case, it’s a pivotal moment and the market is clearly optimistic. We’ll see if that optimism is well placed or not by late Monday.

This remains the deadline Trump set:

“As per Iranian Government request, please let this statement serve to
represent that I am pausing the period of Energy Plant destruction by 10
Days to Monday, April 6, 2026, at 8 P.M., Eastern Time.”

WTI crude oil is down $2.50 to $98.88 and the S&P 500 is at a session high up 0.9%.

This article was written by Adam Button at investinglive.com.

• Prior month 0.0% revised from +0.1%

Details

• Sales: $1.9746T in January; +0.3% m/m (vs Dec 2025), +4.5% y/y
• Inventories: $2.6750T; -0.1% m/m vs 0.1 estimate, +1.0% y/y
• Inventories/Sales Ratio: 1.35, down from 1.40 in Jan 2025

At its core, the Census Business Inventories report is a pulse check on demand vs. supply across the U.S. economy—and right now, the signal is relatively constructive.

Fundamentally, here’s what the latest data is showing:

• Demand is holding up:
  Sales are still growing (+0.3% m/m, +4.5% y/y), which tells you end-demand hasn’t rolled over. Consumers and businesses are still spending at a steady pace.
• Inventory drawdown (slight):
  Inventories dipped -0.1% on the month, which suggests firms are not overbuilding stock. Instead, they’re letting demand absorb existing inventories.
• Lean positioning by businesses:
  The inventory-to-sales ratio fell to 1.35 (from 1.40 last year), meaning companies are carrying less inventory relative to sales—a sign of improved balance.
• No signs of excess supply stress:
  When inventories build too fast relative to sales, it often signals weak demand and future production cuts. That’s not what we’re seeing here.
• Potential tailwind for production:
  Leaner inventories can eventually lead to restocking cycles, which support manufacturing output and GDP if demand remains stable.

Bottom line

The data is telling a “steady demand, controlled supply” story. Businesses are not overextended on inventory, and sales continue to grind higher. That combination keeps the economic backdrop stable-to-positive, and if demand holds, it opens the door for future restocking and production gains rather than cutbacks.Caveats… the data is from January so it is old data. The war and its impact on the economy. The war started on February 28th.

This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.

• Prior was 52.4

Today’s March release showed the PMI rising to 52.3 from 51.6 in February, marking the eighth consecutive month above the 50.0 threshold and pointing to a moderate and accelerating pace of expansion. Both output and new orders posted solid gains, supported in part by precautionary safety stock building as firms sought to lock in supply and prices following the outbreak of war in the Middle East. However, growth was principally driven by domestic demand, as international sales continued to decline under the weight of tariffs and shipping disruptions.

The conflict’s impact was most visible on the cost and supply side. Input price inflation surged to its highest level since August, fueled by rising energy and fuel costs alongside ongoing tariff-related pressures on aluminum and steel. Factory gate price inflation hit a seven-month high as manufacturers passed on costs where possible. Supplier delivery times deteriorated at the sharpest rate since October 2022, with the war exacerbating existing shipping and port delays. Finished goods inventories fell for the first time in eight months as firms shipped directly from stock to compensate for production delays.

Despite the pickup in activity, firms were cautious on hiring—staffing levels were broadly unchanged, with some companies opting not to replace departing workers. Business confidence remained positive but edged slightly lower, with energy prices and tariffs cited as key risks to the outlook.

For background, the S&P Global U.S. Manufacturing PMI is compiled from survey responses from purchasing managers at around 600 American manufacturers, stratified by sector and company size based on GDP contributions. Data are collected in the second half of each month. The headline PMI is a weighted average of five subindices—new orders, output, employment, supplier delivery times, and stocks of purchases—with readings above 50 signaling expansion.

Chris Williamson, Chief Business Economist at S&P
Global Market Intelligence

“Faster growth of output in March points to encouraging
resilience for US manufacturing in the face of the
outbreak of war in the Middle East. Business confidence
regarding output in the year ahead has also so far
held up well. This sustained resilience in part reflects
reduced concerns over government policies such as
tariffs, but also indicates that producers anticipate only
a short-term and modest impact from the war, which is
clearly uncertain.

“It remains early days in terms of the impact of the
conflict, and a sharp rise in prices and delivery delays
has cast a cloud over the outlook, threatening to drive
inflation higher, dampen demand and throttle supply
chains. Factory input costs have already jumped higher
on the back of surging oil prices and supplier delays
have become more widespread than at any time since
October 2022, linked to the war exacerbating existing
shipping, haulage and port delays.

“Some manufacturers are hence reporting stock building
as a precaution against future price rises or supply
shortages, and hiring has almost stalled in order to
reduce staffing costs, underscoring the growing concern
about how the war might cause problems for factories
in the coming weeks. If price pressures and supply
delays persist, demand, employment and production
capabilities will inevitably start to be more seriously
affected.”

Resilience is a nice theme to build on.

This article was written by Adam Button at investinglive.com.

• Prior was 52.5
• Prices paid vs 73.0 expected
• Employment vs 48.8 prior
• New orders vs 55.8 prior

The ISM Manufacturing PMI is published monthly by the Institute for Supply Management, based on survey responses from purchasing and supply executives at over 400 industrial companies across 18 U.S. industries. Unlike the S&P Global PMI, which covers only private firms, the ISM draws from the broader NAICS classification system and is one of the oldest and most widely followed leading indicators of U.S. economic health. The headline PMI is a composite of five diffusion indices—new orders (30%), production (25%), employment (20%), supplier deliveries (15%), and inventories (10%)—with readings above 50 indicating expansion.

U.S. manufacturing spent most of 2025 in contraction. The ISM PMI slipped to 47.9 in December 2025, its lowest level since October 2024 and the third consecutive monthly decline. Production and inventories pulled back, and employment continued to contract, though modest improvements in new orders and backlogs offered faint encouragement. Price pressures remained elevated, with the prices paid subindex holding at 58.5.

January 2026 delivered a dramatic reversal. The PMI surged to 52.6, far above the 48.5 consensus, marking the first expansion in twelve months and the strongest reading since 2022. New orders jumped nearly ten points to 57.1 and production rose to 55.9, though ISM cautioned that some of the rebound reflected post-holiday restocking and preemptive buying ahead of anticipated tariff-related price increases.

February moderated slightly to 52.4 but still beat expectations of 51.8, confirming a second consecutive month of expansion. New orders and production growth slowed but remained solid. Employment and inventories stayed in contraction territory. The most notable development was a sharp acceleration in input prices—the prices paid subindex surged to 70.5, the highest since June 2022—driven by steel, aluminum, and tariff-related cost pressures. The March ISM report is due tomorrow (April 1).

This article was written by Adam Button at investinglive.com.

Trump spoke with Reuters in an interview:

• Does not care about nuclear material, will watch via satellite
• Will express ‘my disgust’ with NATO in speech and says he is absolutely considering withdrawing
• Iran will not have a nuclear weapon, nor do they want one
• We have some more targets left. If we have to, we will do spot hits
• We’re going to be out of Iran pretty quickly, won’t give timeline
• We’ve had full regime change

So this is the communication strategy: Claim a win, say there was regime change and blame any problems on NATO. Today’s speech will be part of that PR campaign.

In terms of NATO, the President can’t unilaterally withdraw from NATO, it takes a two-thirds approval from the Senate and approval from the House. It’s also prohibited to use any federal funds to facilitate a withdrawal.

However, in terms of the US coming to anyone’s defense in NATO, the President can simply ignore any attack on a NATO member (this was always the case) and the mutual defense treaty has always required members to take “such action as it deems necessary” if an ally is attacked.

In essence, while Congress has “locked the door” to keep the US inside the building legally, the President still holds the keys to the “lights and heat.”

The bigger question here is why leave at all? The President has been successful in driving spending from allies higher but this move makes me wonder if Greeland and the Panama Canal or more are back on the table (or never left).

This article was written by Adam Button at investinglive.com.

• Prior was 51.0

Today’s March release showed the headline index falling to exactly 50.0, down from 51.0 in February, signaling a stagnation of manufacturing activity. Production declined for the first time this year, dragged down in part by slower delivery of inputs linked to supply chain disruptions from the war in the Middle East. New orders fell modestly, with tariffs on trade with the United States continuing to suppress demand—export volumes contracted for the fourteenth consecutive month and at a marked pace. Firms drew down existing inventories rather than placing new orders, and purchasing activity contracted marginally as a result.

On the price front, input cost inflation ticked up to its highest level since August, driven by rising fuel prices and supplier charges tied to the Middle East conflict. Manufacturers passed on higher costs where possible, though output charge inflation actually softened to a three-month low. Employment fell marginally for the first time in three months, with some firms restructuring and scaling back capacity to match weaker order books. Business confidence regarding the year-ahead outlook slipped to a three-month low and remained well below its historical average, weighed down by uncertainty around both tariffs and the broader global impact of the conflict.

Commenting on the latest survey results, Paul Smith,
Economics Director at S&P Global Market Intelligence
said:

“Canada’s manufacturing sector again experienced
subdued performance during March. Production
declined marginally and new orders were down
modestly, in part linked to tariffs on trade with the
neighbouring United States.

“Firms also noted that high prices were a problem for
clients, but with costs rising sharply again amid supply
chain disruption and increased fuel prices stemming
from the war in the Middle East, manufacturers saw
little choice but to increase their own charges.

“The conflict in the Middle East, which had a relatively
muted impact on the Canadian manufacturing sector
compared to regions like Europe in March, has
understandably raised the level of uncertainty in the
outlook. With tariffs also still a concern for many firms,
confidence regarding production in the year ahead
fell to a three-month low and remained way below its
average level.”

The S&P Global Canada Manufacturing PMI is compiled from responses to questionnaires sent to purchasing managers at around 400 Canadian manufacturers, stratified by sector and workforce size based on GDP contributions. A reading above 50 signals expansion from the prior month, while below 50 indicates contraction. The PMI is a weighted composite of five subindices: new orders (30%), output (25%), employment (20%), supplier delivery times (15%), and stocks of purchases (10%). It is one of the most widely followed leading indicators of Canadian industrial health.

This article was written by Adam Button at investinglive.com.

Trump’s latest on Truth Social:

Iran’s New Regime President, much less Radicalized and far more intelligent than his predecessors, has just asked the United States of America for a CEASEFIRE! We will consider when Hormuz Strait is open, free, and clear. Until then, we are blasting Iran into oblivion or, as they say, back to the Stone Ages!!! President DJT

To be clear, Masoud Pezeshkian was the President before the conflict and remains the President.

The kink here is that it’s not clear that he’s in charge or was ever in charge. The President in Iran is oftentimes a ceremonial figure who runs the civilian side of the government and needs permission from the Supreme Leader and the IRGC for policy. Lately, there are increasing signs of a fracture between the President and the IRGC.

To me, it looks like the strategy from Trump is to exploit this fracture to basically offer peace to Iranians via the Presidency and claiming that the IRGC is defying negotiations. That could prompt the kind of internal turmoil that could eventually lead to regime change, or at least to instability.

As for markets, there was a pop in equity futures initially but that’s reversed. The problem here is that Hormuz seems to be back on the table as a negotiating issue when yesterday it looked like the US would just cut and run.

This article was written by Adam Button at investinglive.com.