Oil: Uncertainty Drives Brent Up 6% in Three Days

Truth Social as a Catalyst: Trump's Direct Threat to Iran

On the morning of March 26, Donald Trump posted a message on his Truth Social platform urging Iran to « get serious before it's too late. » The wording leaves no room for ambiguity: « Once it’s done, there will be no going back, and it will be terrible, » wrote the former US president.

This statement comes as indirect diplomatic channels are reportedly active between Washington and Tehran, with Pakistani authorities acting as mediators. The contrast between the threatening tone of the presidential message and the existence of behind-the-scenes discussions immediately heightens the anxiety of oil markets. Brent crude reacted within the hour, accelerating an upward movement that had already begun the day before.

This isn't the first time a social media post by Donald Trump has triggered a noticeable price movement in the crude oil market. However, the combination of an explicit ultimatum and the context of fragile negotiations gives this situation a particular intensity.

The Timeline of a Surge: From Ultimatum Postponement to Price Rebound

To understand the movement of Brent crude between March 23 and 26, it's essential to outline the factual sequence. The weekend before March 23, Donald Trump postponed an ultimatum addressed to Iran. Markets interpreted this move as a sign of de-escalation. As a result, Brent crude fell below $100, a significant psychological threshold for traders.

On March 25, Iran officially denied the existence of any negotiations with the United States. This denial shattered the narrative of appeasement that had temporarily pushed prices down. Brent crude surged again. The following day, a new round of pressure from Trump on Truth Social amplified the movement. By noon on March 26, Brent was priced at $106 per barrel.

In three days, the price of crude experienced a swing 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: volatility induced by geopolitical uncertainty, where each conflicting signal amplifies price fluctuations.

Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt: Quiet Behind-the-Scenes Mediation

Behind the verbal escalation, a more discreet diplomatic game is being played. Pakistan's Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar, publicly confirms on the social media platform X that Islamabad is acting as a mediator between Washington and Tehran. « Indirect talks between the United States and Iran are taking place through messages conveyed by Pakistan, » he writes, while dismissing speculation about « peace talks » as « useless. »

The content of these exchanges remains largely opaque, but one concrete element has emerged: the United States has transmitted 15 points to Iran via Pakistan. These points are, according to Ishaq Dar, « currently under review » by Tehran. The exact nature of these proposals has not been disclosed at this stage.

Pakistan is not acting alone. Ishaq Dar notes that « brotherly countries like Turkey and Egypt, among others, are also supporting this initiative. » This informal diplomatic coalition therefore brings together three regional powers with distinct relationships with Washington and Tehran, lending it a certain credibility as a mediation channel. However, Iran's denial of the very existence of negotiations casts doubt on 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 world's leading producers and controls the Strait of Hormuz—a strategic chokepoint through which about one-fifth of the world's oil passes. Any threat, even verbal, to the continuity of these flows immediately impacts prices.

The volatility observed between March 23 and 26, 2025, does not indicate a change in produced or consumed volumes. It reflects an ongoing reassessment of risk by market operators. A delay in an ultimatum lowers the geopolitical risk premium built into prices. A denial of negotiations drives it up. A threatening message intensifies it further.

This dynamic creates an environment where traditional fundamentals—stocks, production, demand—temporarily take a backseat. It is the political signals, their timing, and their credibility that dictate daily fluctuations. The current sequence, with a tripartite mediation by Pakistan, Turkey, and Egypt on one side and an American president who publicly hardens his stance on the other, keeps the market in a state of high uncertainty. Each new statement, each denial, and each diplomatic leak is likely to trigger a significant price movement.