From day one of the war, we kept mentioning the duration has not been priced in. Hormuz got locked down by Iran's cheap, asymmetric weapons and the global shipping insurance system. Looking back, the framework held up. Hormuz has now been effectively closed for three months straight. Our call was never "this ends fast." It was "this lingers." And that part has played out.

2. Oil, we got out at the top

We had argued early on that the chokepoint could push oil to a high level, and with hindsight we closed our position almost right at the peak of this leg. The exit, on April 29 to April 30, turned out to be a very good call.

Why didn't it go higher? Everyone started releasing oil from both strategic and commercial reserves, and the US stepped in as the supplier of last resort, which together cushioned the gap. From here, oil might still have room to run, but the risk to reward is no longer attractive. Even if it rises, the hit to the US stays limited: the US is a producer itself, and households in developed economies absorb higher prices more easily. The real pain falls on importers with thin reserves, especially the poorer ones. Economies like India, where the current account and currency are already fragile, take it on the chin first — a case we've leaned on many times in earlier work.

3. Equities and the VIX, the de-risking bias and the great AI decoupling

US households hold ~47% of financial assets in stocks, above the 2000 dot-com peak, so a falling market forces the president to walk policy back. History gives two strike prices: a VIX near 50 triggered last year's tariff climbdown, and a VIX near 30 triggered the dovish Iran turn two months ago. That de-risking bias flips at those thresholds.

AI has made the market numb to oil. Since the late-March ceasefire signals, US equities have decoupled from the shock; the chip rally and better earnings offset the energy hit, and Hormuz faded at the margin. We underestimated this.

This new era is still early. Short term, AI carries real volatility risk — stretched valuations, crowded positioning, a narrative running ahead of itself — so a pullback can come anytime. But zoom out and we're at the beginning: compute supply can't meet demand, and the build cycle for chips, power and data centers has only just started. Short term swings are noise; they don't change the direction.

The paradox is that the stronger the market, the less pressure to force a peace deal. With no market pain, the hawks sound more convincing, and the Hormuz talks keep stalling. Peace now feeds the US mostly through bonds and inflation expectations, not equities, while the hardest-hit oil importers aren't even at the table. The people paying the cost have no voice, and that's what keeps the standoff alive.

4. Gold, not a war hedge but a ticket off the dollar planet

Why did gold pull back after the war? Because war hedging was never the main driver — we laid this out in Day 22 of Hormuz: The First Crack in $39 Trillion. The real driver these past years was central banks: over a thousand tonnes of net purchases a year from 2022 to 2024, led by Poland, Turkey, India and China, motivated by de-dollarization and hedging sanctions risk. That's structural demand, not a war spike.

Gold's real role is a hedge against holding dollars itself. If the dollar ever suffers a deep, sustained devaluation, gold is one of the few tickets off the dollar planet. So it gets supported as the odds of major dollar debasement tick up from zero; there's no second currency ready to take over settlement, and gold is the vehicle for that. Short term it still swings with real rates and the dollar, but that's noise — it doesn't change the long term role.

5. Crypto, the liquidity tide is going out, but respect the cycle

The turning point was last year's 10/10: crypto liquidity dried up and no fresh money came in. Where did the money go? AI stocks became a new "crypto market" of their own, with some names even acting like meme coins, and next to that crypto lost its shine and money got pulled out.

Still, respect the cycle. This is just the old rule playing out — the bull ran too far, so now we're in a bear, and there's no need to be overly pessimistic. The bounces in bear market could still go higher. But don't kid yourself either: that doesn't mean money flows back and we're suddenly in a bull again. The next bull still has to wait for the cycle, so stay patient.

6. The next trade

The market never runs short of opportunities. For capital and individuals alike, the AI era is a once-in-a-lifetime chance. Even a bubble is often the only door an ordinary person gets to walk through: a bubble means dislocated pricing and that mess is exactly what leaves room for the people who come later. If markets were always efficient, maybe only a handful like Buffett would keep making money.

Subscribe

Change 1. Geopolitics and the dollar

• Hormuz. The US hit Iranian targets. Rubio said there’s “good news.” Iran’s state TV leaked a draft deal; the White House called it a “complete fabrication.” Strike, then talk, then strike again. Like we said before, this is not something you fast-forward.

• Long-end pressure. The 30-year held near 5.07–5.18% this week, still at multi-year highs. Yardeni told the Fed in public: drop the easing bias or lose control. The 6/16 FOMC is Warsh’s first real test in the chair.

One catalyst alone still can’t break the market. You need two of three to stack up: credit, the Fed, geopolitics.

Change 2. AI capex spreads from the US to Asia

ByteDance is looking at up to $70 billion in AI capex this year. Tencent and Alibaba are also raising AI spend, though at smaller scale. Analysts now say the spending gap between US and Chinese tech giants is “smaller than the headlines suggest, and smaller still on ambition.” Same week: China tightened travel limits on its top private-sector AI talent. A two-way signal that AI is now a sovereignty story.

Change 3. The scarce-resource satellites are already running

The “scarce-resource satellite” bucket we opened last week (PLTR / SATS / ASTS) is paying off early. ASTS is up more than 50% in a single week. Scarce spectrum, assets you can’t copy, a growth path that does not need AI multiples to keep expanding.

II. Signal scorecard

Read more

The US-China meeting came in mild, pretty much like we expected. Putin’s Beijing visit didn’t flip the table either. But 5/19 was a useful reminder. The 30-year Treasury hit 5.18%, the highest since 2007 — that’s the core signal. Gold and silver and stocks also pulled back in the same window. Then 5/20 Trump softened on Iran, 5/21 AI came roaring back, and the market mean-reverted fast.

The framework hasn’t changed. AI remains the main engine. Chasing up here could still be risky. When a real entry shows up, we’ll tell you. Meanwhile there are alternative instruments.

I. What changed this week

Change 1. Two big events passed quietly

At the airport, Trump got the VP, Han Zheng; Putin got the FM, Wang Yi. On paper Han outranks Wang. In practice the VP slot is largely ceremonial, while Wang sits in the Politburo and actually runs foreign policy. Beijing kept both sides happy without picking a favorite — and Xi’s framing of the Trump visit, a “constructive, strategic and stable relationship”, is exactly the register China wants on the Russia track too.

May 14 in Beijing: the US-China meeting was mild, as expected. No surprise. And no surprise is good news. Then on 5/19 and 5/20 Putin visited Beijing. On energy, arms, or settlement systems, nothing came out of it that would make Washington want to rewrite last week’s meeting.

A reminder, though. A few weeks out, Trump might do something weird like what happened after previous meetings with Xi. It probably won’t come from a direct US-China clash. More likely it comes from the Iran or Strait of Hormuz line. We keep watching.

Change 2. 5/19 was a useful reminder

The core of the day was the long end. The 30-year yield hit 5.18%, the highest since 2007. Gold and silver also pulled back in the same window, which tells you it wasn’t a one-asset story — long-end fiscal pressure was the through-line. Trump was threatening Iran at the same time, so the classic combo was there: stagflation worry, long-end fiscal pressure, and a geopolitical second-order kick. Then 5/20 Trump softened on Iran, 5/21 SoftBank ripped 20%, AI came back, and the tape mean-reverted fast.

Our read is simple. Macro can cause one noisy day, and 5/19 is a clean example, but a single catalyst alone doesn’t break the market. To get real damage you need at least two of three to stack up: credit, the Fed, and geopolitics. We’re not there yet.

Our long-vol tail did its job on 5/19. We’re keeping it on.

Change 3. Warsh is in, and the Fed minutes leaned hawkish

Warsh was confirmed 54 to 45 on 5/13 and took over from Powell on 5/14. His combo is to cut rates, keep QT running, push back on fiscal dominance, and rebuild the line between the Fed and Treasury. That’s not the traditional dove setup. The Apr 28-29 FOMC minutes (released 5/20) also leaned hawkish.

So the tug-of-war between the long end and AI multiples is still going. That’s the main source of noise for the next four to eight weeks. We don’t trade noise.

Change 4. Hormuz is already biting the weaker economies

Hormuz isn’t resolved, but how it spreads is already clear. It hits the weak and the poor first. The all-importers like India and Indonesia are already under pressure. The direct hit to US tech and the US economy is limited. This lines up with our INR short call from before. Position stays as is.

II. Signal scorecard

Read more

Two hundred thousand satellites. One country. One week.

For context: the entire global active satellite fleet today sits at around 15,000 birds (with Starlink alone accounting for roughly 10,000 of them), and the US controls the overwhelming majority of LEO. China just filed for a single-month number that, on paper, would let it own the sky.

Everyone in our world is talking about AI right now, and they should be. AI is the trade of the decade. But sitting right underneath the AI conversation, almost invisible to most public-market investors, there’s a second story building that I think will end up as one of the biggest investment themes of this cycle.

That story is satellites. More precisely, it’s the spectrum and the orbital slots they sit on. They are finite. They are allocated by a UN body almost nobody reads about. And they are increasingly treated, inside every major government, as strategic national assets.

This piece is my attempt to lay out the whole landscape. How the system actually works, who’s fighting whom, which public companies have real exposure, and where I think the money eventually flows.

Read more

The direction has been our base case for weeks: both sides will advance on several fronts — AI, trade, people-to-people exchange, mil-to-mil channels will all get touched — but no single point will see a real breakthrough. What lands on paper will mostly be “framework” and “direction,” not “checklist” and “timeline.”

Net-net, this is a mild, low-risk meeting. Not reconciliation, not loss-of-control. More like both sides resetting the table — installing a “do-not-lose-control” default for US-China relations over the next few years.

What actually matters is not the meeting itself, but the 4-8 week implementation window that begins the moment Trump’s plane lifts off. The specifics — line items, deadlines, deliverables — only land once Treasury, Commerce, USTR, and the White House push out the actual paperwork. Until then, every “super-package” the wires are floating is narrative, not price.

I · What Changed in the Last Week

Change 1 · The US–Iran war window got pushed out, not shut

The Iran line has shifted from “mutual escalation” into a holding pattern — and holding is not over; the safety isn’t off. The cleaner US–China talks resolve, the faster Washington’s bandwidth rotates back to Iran / Hormuz. So the next escalation point most likely shows up on the Iran line. Trump’s own Truth Social cadence during the implementation window is a separate, stacked variable on top of that.

Change 2 · Putin lands in Beijing right after

This is the most under-priced variable this week. As soon as the Xi-Trump handshake settles, Putin arrives in Beijing (timing not officially announced, but the Kremlin confirmed on 5/14 that preparations are complete and the visit will be “very soon”). If the joint communiqué shows visibly deeper Russia–China alignment on any single front — energy, defense procurement, or settlement infrastructure — Washington’s read of “what was that meeting last week” gets rewritten.

Change 3 · The AI Capex top debate hasn’t gone away

DeepSeek V4 — released April 24, running on Huawei Ascend — and Huawei’s CloudMatrix 384 are by now both confirmed in production. AI is also expected to be touched at this week’s talks. Two threads run in parallel: on one side, “China can run frontier models on worse hardware”; on the other, “China is still in the queue for high-end US chips.” Both true simultaneously → NVDA top + China AI supply chain top. Main thesis unchanged.

II · Signal Scorecard

Read more

The Xi-Trump summit is priced as a non-event in last week’s ETF Compass. The S&P forward vol curve has no kink around May 14-15. FXI and ASHR — the two main China ETFs — sit at the bottom of the expensive-vol screen, meaning options on Chinese equities are as cheap as they’ve been in months. Translation: nobody is paying up to hedge this meeting. Priced clean is not the same as priced safe. The handshake has no convexity left in it — the path after does.

The base case for Thursday is the same script that’s run for nine years: chocolate cake, beautiful lines, a planeload of US CEOs, a Boeing order, an ag list, a handshake that risk assets celebrate for forty-eight hours.

But there is the other half of the trade. Per Barclays’ ETF Compass last week, SPY moved more than 1σ around four of the last five Xi-Trump face-to-faces — and the China ETFs (KWEB, FXI, ASHR) moved harder. Read it as direction, not promise: the event has been priced clean and historically traded dirty. Consensus this time isn’t wrong — it’s just being bought at zero cost. The interesting question isn’t Thursday’s handshake. It’s the four-to-eight weeks after, when the script reliably reverses. That’s where the tail sits.

Chocolate Cake, and a Thousand Reasons

April 6, 2017. Mar-a-Lago. Dinner.

Trump and Xi sit down together for the first time. Dessert: chocolate cake. Trump later told Fox it was “the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake you’ve ever seen.”

Just as Xi took his first bite, Trump leaned in and told him: we just fired 59 Tomahawks into Syria.

That’s the opening frame of US-China summit diplomacy. Sugar coating, plus steel. The sugar came from the Trump side itself: Ivanka’s five-year-old daughter Arabella Kushner, with her three-year-old brother Joseph, sang Mo Li Hua / Jasmine Flower (a traditional Chinese folk song) in Mandarin and recited the Three Character Classic (the classical Confucian primer every Chinese child grows up with) for Xi. A deliberate charm gesture from Trump’s family to his guests. The steel was the host’s: mid-dessert, Trump leaning across the table to tell Xi about 59 cruise missiles.

Nine years on. This Thursday, the upcoming Xi-Trump meeting — this time on Beijing’s turf. No Mar-a-Lago dessert table.

Five Meetings, Four Episodes. Same Playbook.

Put the opening lines and closing results of the past five summits side by side. This isn’t coincidence. This is a machine.

April 2017 | Mar-a-Lago → November 2017 | Beijing State Visit

April 2017, Mar-a-Lago. Xi opens: “We have a thousand reasons to make China-US relations work. Not a single one to break them.” Trump closes: “We’ve made tremendous progress. Our relationship is outstanding.” The 100-day action plan gets announced.

Seven months later, Trump returns to Beijing on a state visit. Xi, at the state dinner: “China-US relations face limited challenges, but boundless potential for growth.” Trump, inside the Great Hall: “I don’t blame China. Who can blame a country for taking advantage of another country for the benefit of its citizens?” An official dinner inside the Forbidden City — described at the time as the first such treatment for a foreign leader since 1949. Deliverables totaling $253.5 billion: a 300-jet Boeing order (~$37B), long-dated LNG, bulk ag purchases. Highest protocol. Full props package. The closest analog to what we’re watching this Thursday.

Then the trade war started. March 2018, Section 232 steel and aluminum. July 2018, the first $34B in China tariffs hit. May 2019, the rate on $250B of Chinese goods got jacked to 25%. Total escalation inside 14 months.

December 2018 | Buenos Aires

Trump walks out of dinner: “An amazing and productive meeting, with unlimited possibilities.” On the plane he adds: “Our relationship is incredible.”

90-day tariff truce announced.

Three days later (three, not three weeks) Trump tweets: “I am a Tariff Man.”

May 2019: tariffs jump from 10% to 25%. The rest you know.

June 2019 | Osaka G20

Xi opens with ping-pong diplomacy — the 1971 small ball that, in his words, “played a big role in moving world events.”

Trump replies: “We’re right back on track.” Pauses the $300B tariff round. Soft pass on Huawei.

Five weeks later, on August 1, the new $300B in tariffs lands. Huawei stays on the US Commerce Department’s Entity List — the export-ban list that cuts a foreign firm off from American semiconductors, software, and IP. Not one day off.

October 2025 | Busan

Xi: “We do not always see eye to eye. This is normal.”

Trump on Air Force One: “Zero to ten, ten the best. I’d give this summit a 12.”

On rare earths: “There is no road block at all on rare earth. Hopefully that will disappear from our vocabulary.”

Two months later, a US carrier group rolls into the Caribbean, pointed at Venezuela. Four months later, the Iran war breaks out and Hormuz goes functionally dark. Stated reason: counter-narcotics, counter-terror. Real effect: two of China’s energy anchors squeezed at the same time, one in Latin America and one in the Middle East. Whether or not Washington calls it containment, the chessboard reads the same way.

After “12 out of 10”

Busan was late October 2025. Inside four months: US naval forces enter the Caribbean in December under a “counter-narcotics” banner, aimed at Venezuela. February 2026, war on Iran. Hormuz functionally closed. March 2026, Venezuelan crude exports effectively shut in.

Venezuela ships China roughly 400,000 barrels a day of heavy crude — about 4-5% of Chinese seaborne imports, most of it disguised in customs data as Brazilian or Malaysian — and is Beijing’s single largest oil-and-debt exposure in Latin America. Iran, once you re-attribute the so-called “Malaysian” barrels (Malaysia ships China roughly twice as much crude as it actually produces), is among China’s three biggest crude suppliers, the Middle East anchor of the Belt and Road, and a key node for yuan-denominated oil settlement. Together they’re roughly 15% of China’s real crude imports. But the real weight isn’t in the barrels.

Put those two moves side by side. Hit Iran, and you cut China’s Middle East anchor. Squeeze Venezuela, and you cut China’s Latin America exposure. This is one chessboard. The game isn’t over.

But there’s a reversal no one fully priced: the war meant to pressure China has also constrained Washington. When you are the co-belligerent in a Middle East conflict, energy markets are rattled, and your own Court of International Trade — the federal court that adjudicates tariff disputes — just shook the legal foundation of your current tariff workaround (even if the tariffs themselves haven’t disappeared yet), you walk into Beijing needing stability as much as your counterpart does. Trump arrives in China with a thinner hand than he had in Busan. Xi knows it. That’s what “emboldened” looks like — not louder, just more patient.

Beijing Understands the Game

Five handshakes in, China’s leadership has finished a full cognitive cycle on Trump.

2017 China: treat him as a new president. Full charm offensive in return. “A thousand reasons.” State visit invite. Forbidden City state dinner. $253.5 billion in deliverables.

2018-2019 China: start to realize the man reverses course the moment he lands back home. A “commitment” to him isn’t political credit. It’s marketing content. The line circulating quietly in Beijing’s diplomatic circle back then: the better the meeting with Trump, the harder the crash after.

2025 Busan China: Xi’s line, “We do not always see eye to eye. This is normal”, was not diplomatic boilerplate. It was a categorical statement. Translation: I have accepted that you will renege, and we will still talk. That sentence has never come out of China’s top leader’s mouth before.

2026 May China: complete mental shift. The goal isn’t to build the relationship. The goal is managing uncertainty.

Beijing’s own flagship mouthpiece confirmed the frame this morning. A long-form People’s Daily front-page commentary on the morning of May 13, signed by Guo Jiping (the paper’s house pen-name reserved for major foreign-policy set-pieces, distinct from the more frequent Zhong Sheng column), ran under the headline: “US-China relations cannot return to the past — but can have a better future.” That’s not boosterism. That’s managed expectations at official register. The line buried mid-text: “dialogue is better than confrontation, cooperation is better than zero-sum, stability is better than chaos.” Three comparisons, in descending order of ambition. Published to a domestic audience, on the morning of the summit. Beijing almost never runs expectation management in public before a summit. This time it did.

Trump’s strongest asset was never tariffs. It’s unpredictability. That is the one variable no counterparty who treats commitment as political credit can hedge. Beijing has now internalized that variable into its own reaction function. The internal framing of this summit is defensive.

So What Is Beijing Actually Doing This Week

If you accept the premise that Beijing no longer believes Trump, every visual symbol of this summit reassembles.

The potential 500-jet Boeing order and the ag purchase list. This isn’t really “a public stake Trump can’t walk away from.” Given his style, he can pivot any time and blame China. The order doesn’t lock him in. He won’t even pretend to care. But it is a deal that fits Beijing’s diplomatic profile: quantifiable purchases, traded for controllable stability. If what the US side wants right now is tariff de-escalation and a posture of “winning,” this is a price Beijing will pay, and they’ll happily hand Trump the off-ramp. Short of a full surface blow-up, this kind of shopping list has never been a real problem for China.

Beijing even pre-loaded Trump’s victory narrative. Xi first offered that framing at Busan; People’s Daily put it back on the front page on the morning of the summit: “China’s development and Trump’s ‘Make America Great Again’ are not mutually exclusive — China and the US can fully achieve mutual success and shared prosperity.” That sentence isn’t a concession. It’s a face-saving ramp, built in advance, so Trump can walk away claiming a win without Beijing giving up anything structural. The other side of the table has stopped being a counterparty. It’s become a co-author of Trump’s press release.

Musk, Cook, Fink, Fraser, Ortberg in tow. These CEOs are US capital’s dependence on the China market, in human form. Beijing inviting them in puts “we still want to do business” on the table in plain view.

But one thing has to be clear. The price tag here only buys “stability in trade and tariffs.” It does not come close to buying “China cooperating with the US on Iran.” China’s position on Iran is strategic. Energy. Geopolitics. Yuan-based oil settlement. None of that gets traded away for a Boeing order. If Washington actually wanted China to lean on Tehran in a decisive way, the corresponding ask back would have to be the things China has wanted for years and the US has refused to give. Chips. Real loosening of export controls. A defined boundary on Taiwan. None of those are on the table right now.

On top of that, after the US Court of International Trade’s May 7 ruling, the legal foundation of the tariff tool itself is shaky. The US hand is getting thinner. What Beijing is willing to give right now is a courtesy. What Beijing won’t give, the US doesn’t have the cards to force.

Xi pre-saying it himself: “We often don’t see eye to eye, and that’s normal.” That’s expectation management, delivered ahead of the room. Don’t romanticize this summit, in markets or at home. Before a summit, Beijing only ever puts out positive talking points. Not this time.

Putin lands in Beijing next week. Days after Trump leaves, Putin arrives. This is for Trump’s benefit: whether you show up or not, the other side of the line is already there.

The whole event has stopped being a negotiation. It’s a risk management ritual.

What’s Likely to Be Announced Thursday

Washington’s wish list has been summarized in five words by a CSIS senior adviser: Boeings, Beans, Beef, Board of Trade, Board of Investment. Three are purchases. Two are committees. Note which category is missing: enforcement.

Likely deliverables: a 737 Max order that could run as high as 500 jets. An ag purchase list (soy, pork, beef, poultry). A 12-month rare earth export extension. A counter-narcotics framework (officially packaged as fentanyl cooperation) — both sides already announced a cross-border drug network takedown days before the meeting, and the US extradited a fugitive to China, giving both governments a zero-cost win to attach their names to. Something called a “US-China Trade Commission,” a quasi-cabinet-level working group designed to handle trade issues without touching national security questions — i.e., a mechanism for kicking every hard problem six months down the road. (The US Trade Representative already pre-downplayed it before Trump landed.)

Unlikely to be structurally resolved: a real pause on Taiwan arms sales. Any substantive loosening of AI chip export controls. Any Chinese concession on Iran. A reopening pathway for Venezuelan oil.

Both sides will smile. Markets will rip. Trump will say “13 out of 10.” Xi will say “China-US relations enter a new phase.”

And then.

The Tail: Where the Cheap Hedge Sits

This is the part the non-event pricing leaves on the table. Not a forecast. Just an observation about where the asymmetry lives.

If the last five summits are any guide, the first crack tends to land four to eight weeks after the handshake — usually on Trump’s Truth Social. The form is familiar: “China is not following through on agricultural purchases,” or “China is helping Iran rebuild.” Then the toolkit comes out.

What’s different this round is the toolkit itself. Per The New York Times, the US Court of International Trade ruled that Trump’s 10% global tariff on most imports is illegal. His space to launch a trade war without explicit Congressional authorization has shrunk.

So if the script does reverse, it probably won’t use tariffs. It will reach for the dirtier stuff:

• Entity List additions — Commerce Department export bans on specific Chinese firms (the Huawei treatment)

• SDN sanctions — Treasury’s Specially Designated Nationals list, the harshest financial sanction the US issues; cuts a name out of the dollar system entirely

• Tightened chip and semiconductor export controls

• Secondary sanctions on Chinese refiners buying Iranian or Venezuelan crude

Tariffs are blunt. These are scalpels. The market is numb to the first. It has not really priced the second.

And this time, Beijing won’t pretend to be surprised. The reaction function is already loaded — rare earth export quotas snap tighter, a US company in China suddenly walks into an antitrust review, the Putin visit gets upgraded. All pre-staged.

None of this needs to happen. The base case is still that Thursday is theater and the weeks after are quiet enough. The point is just that the tail isn’t expensive right now, and five handshakes of history suggest it’s worth keeping a line on.

Closing

When Trump lifted that chocolate cake at Mar-a-Lago in 2017, the market thought it was the beginning. Nine years later, we can see it was just page one of the script.

Every China-US summit, the market re-prices “political credit.” Every re-pricing turns out to be wrong.

Because political credit, in this relationship, has never existed.

This Thursday, you’ll see a beautiful handshake. You’ll hear beautiful lines. Markets will rip. CEOs will smile. The planes will be announced.

The meeting is the relief trade. The post-meeting implementation window is the risk.

Enjoy it. Just don’t hold it.

The market is right that Thursday is a non-event. The cheap question is what shows up four weeks after.

Garrett’s Signal · May 2026 · Xi-Trump Series #1

No news. No noise. Just signal.

5/4 weekend we pushed the Project Freedom tactical note out ahead of everyone. Three hours later, shots were fired. Both sides pulled back. Nobody really swung. But pause is not cancel. After Trump-Xi (5/14-15), that military window can reopen any time. This is not the start of good news. This is real escalation deferred, not removed.

Those two are how we are reading the world this week. The exit was right. The warning is not done. What follows: how the fake peace is being painted, and how much the cracks underneath widened in just one week.

The Whitewashed Truce

This week’s tape wants you to relax. Don’t.

Up top, everything looks fine. Saudi-Iran’s 14-point MOU got signed. Trump-Xi is on for 5/14. AAPL guided Q3 +14-17%, way past the 9.5% the street wanted. AMD data center hit $5.8B in Q1, an all-time high. Q2 total revenue guided to $11.2B. Three big cloud names came in +20-28% YoY. KOSPI and KOSDAQ both at fresh highs. BTC quietly walked up to the $82-83K door. Risk-on, music playing.

Underneath, it’s a different picture. Credit is starting to limp. Qualtrics has a $5.3B deal that no one will take. Spirit Airlines went bankrupt. HSBC added more reserves on the Iran war. Bloomberg’s credit weekly is flagging Aegon and Barclays. China just upgraded its anti-blocking law and sent Wang Yi to lean on Iran in person. That’s both hands on the table now: one on demand, one on the chokepoint. The War Powers clock is a week past expiry. The Pentagon blacklist added Tencent and CATL. Berkshire’s cash pile hit $397B, a record. Greg Abel’s first quarter as CEO, same playbook as Buffett. DeepSeek V4 is real. Huawei’s CloudMatrix 384 is running. Chinese domestic substitution is not a slide deck anymore.

Our read: a fake peace can be painted, and it gets painted right up until it can’t be. Late May is a potential breaking point, but we don’t pin a date. If AAPL, AMD, and SK Hynix keep printing, the music can run all the way to Mag7 Q2 around late July, and the breaking point gets pushed 4-6 weeks. The cracks underneath are widening, and the breaking point isn’t here yet. Pause is not cancel. After Trump-Xi, the war window can reopen. That’s the real escalation.

II · What Changed This Week

Read more

Markets read it as de-escalation. Brent opened down 2.4% before fading back to $108. SPX is printing all-time highs. Asia is waking up to “geopolitics is over” headlines.

Read it again. Slowly.

This isn’t a Navy escort. Per WSJ and Axios, U.S. warships will sit in the vicinity — not alongside the tankers — ready to respond if Iran’s military targets shipping. The Navy already declined direct Hormuz escort requests back in March, citing risk. What Trump rolled out Sunday is a softer architecture: coordination, DFC insurance, recommended lanes, warships standing by.

It’s the 1987–88 playbook. When the U.S. reflagged Kuwaiti tankers during the Iran-Iraq War, Iran mined the waterway. The USS Samuel B. Roberts hit a mine. The American response was Operation Praying Mantis — half of Iran’s surface fleet sunk or crippled in a single day.

“Project Freedom” puts Iran in the same box. Let the ships pass and concede Hormuz leverage. Disrupt them and hand Trump the casus belli he doesn’t currently have.

And here’s the part to write down. Hours after the announcement, UKMTO confirmed a tanker took “unknown projectiles” 78 nautical miles north of Fujairah. Crew safe. The vessel and the attacker haven’t been identified yet.

That’s the exact type of incident this framework was built to respond to.

Markets see this as the war winding down. I see it as the fuse getting lit.

What follows are five things — none of them a smoking gun on its own — that have been quietly stacking around that fuse for two weeks. Together they explain why this is the wrong week to be comfortable.

What’s Already Stacked Around the Fuse

1. Iran’s storage tank is filling

Kpler’s April 27 report put it bluntly: Iran has 12 to 22 days of storage left. Bessent confirmed it on the 30th — Kharg Island is “approaching saturation.”

Once Iran is forced to shut in production, the U.S. window for the “best strike” closes too. Bombing a country that’s already not pumping doesn’t hurt it the way bombing one that is does.

The optimal strike window isn’t after the tanks are full. It’s before.

We’re in the front half of that window right now.

The bull case for Project Freedom: if storage truly maxes out, Iran loses the day-to-day leverage of oil flows and might let ships pass just to relieve domestic pressure. Possible. But it doesn’t relieve the strike window’s expiration — and the political calendar doesn’t wait for storage math.

2. The Pentagon is in attack posture

Count what’s already moved into theater:

• A 4,500-person Amphibious Ready Group, arriving in early May

• Carrier Ford — longest deployment since Vietnam, overdue for maintenance

• Carrier Bush — rotating in mid-month. The two-week overlap is when U.S. firepower in the Gulf peaks.

• CENTCOM’s Cooper has briefed Trump on a “short, sharp” strike package

• Dark Eagle hypersonics under consideration for first-ever Middle East deployment

You don’t move that much steel for a routine cruise. You move it when somebody might pull the trigger.

3. Hegseth invented a war power that doesn’t exist

April 30, Senate Armed Services Committee. The 60-day War Powers Act clock was about to expire on the Iran war.

Hegseth’s testimony, paraphrased: the clock pauses during a ceasefire. Legal scholars pointed out, in real time, that the WPR has no such provision. He made it up on the stand.

But here’s what actually matters: a withdrawal resolution failed the same day. A handful of Republicans broke ranks. Not enough.

So the executive branch now has, in effect, a fresh 60-day immunity coupon. If Trump restarts strikes, Congress would need to pass another binding resolution to stop him — and they just failed to pass one with active hostilities still running.

The legal guardrail people assumed existed? Doesn’t.

4. The political window isn’t opening. It’s closing

Trump lands in Beijing on May 14–15 to meet Xi. He cannot strike during that visit.

So the path forks two ways: hit before he leaves, or hit after he gets back.

“After” means walking into Beijing carrying three months of unresolved Iran on his face. For a president who treats every meeting as a leverage exercise, showing up empty-handed is unthinkable. Striking first — and showing up two days later as the guy who just demonstrated resolve — is the opposite.

The political value of a strike on May 9 is larger than the military value of a strike on May 9.

5. Iran just slammed the diplomatic door

April 30. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei — who took the seat after his father was killed in March — gave his first public address since the succession.

The message, stripped of ceremony: we keep the nukes. We keep the missiles. We keep Hormuz.

Tehran’s 14-point proposal is now in the open: lift the blockade, withdraw U.S. forces, end sanctions, pay reparations — then we’ll talk. Trump’s reply was one word: “unacceptable.”

There’s no diplomatic ramp this week. There’s barely a hallway.

Five conditions stacked. The fuse was lit Sunday night.

Not a prediction. Just the signal. Stay cautious. Stay hedged.

Subscribe now

Garrett’s Signal · Tactical Note ·

No news. No noise. Just signal.

Three things this week: ① Keep trimming duration. ② Build the Long Vol tail (25% of planned size) now. It covers gap events (airstrike, credit, liquidity) that the slow triggers can't catch in time. ③ Write out the trigger plan for the main 75% (currently zero).

Strategy count is a cost. This week we subtract.

I. Where We Are | Coordinates

II. Phase | From “Deploy” to “Prepare”

Current phase: long commodities is the core. Light net short on equity. China Compute sits as conditional risk-on. The biggest unhedged risk is a gap event from military escalation. That’s exactly what the new 25% Long Vol tail covers. Once the Long Vol main triggers, the book pivots to defense by itself.

Last phase (4/16–4/29): main trade was long crude duration. It paid. Brent $90 → $126. Trimmed on 4/29. Curve steepener under review. This phase (from 4/30): trim. Lock direction. Sit on our hands. Next-phase themes (Compute, China, hedge for the knock-on) are directionally clear. Timing isn’t. This week we build the Long Vol tail (25%) for gap events. Main 75% stays at 0. Wait for triggers. Switch signals (any two triggers → start Long Vol main 75% build + reassess Compute Stack): ① VVIX over 95 for 3 days running (vol of vol loosens first). ② SPX skew (SDEX / 25-delta put) steepens hard (long-dated protection bid up). ③ HY-IG dispersion widens (credit loosens inside first). ④ NDX/RSP rolls over from highs (breadth weakens first). ⑤ Compute dispersion spikes.

Our read: we don’t know yet if the music’s still playing. We watch. One side: CTAs still bid, first earnings wave strong (GOOGL, AMZN), Fed sitting through June. Risk assets can extend. Other side: Fed 8:4 hawk-locked, 10Y 4.41%, Brent $126. Margin compression is already biting. Both paths are real. Don’t over-allocate to either. Wait for triggers. Mid-May to early June is structurally fragile (CPI knock-on + FOMC). We don’t assume that has to be the inflection.

My lean (not a base case): music probably runs another 2–4 weeks before the real damage hits. This is a lean for what to watch. Not what to size. Not when to time.

III. NEW DEVELOPMENTS | Probability Shifts This Week

Below are the probability shifts from this week’s news that reposition the framework.

IV. Signal Scorecard — Apr 30

Read more

Hormuz is still functionally closed. Brent has gone from just above $70 pre-war to above $113 today. Physical Dated Brent printed as high as $144 in early April. The UAE just announced its exit from OPEC effective May 1. And per a WSJ report, Trump is now positioning the U.S. Navy’s blockade of the Strait as a long-term, deliberate strategy.

Time to sit down and run through the past two months, and our long-crude trade, the highest-conviction position we've sized into since the war started.

I. What We Got Right

1) Hormuz Has No Solution

This was the earliest, and clearest, line we put down once the war started.

Late February, early March: the market was still pricing oil on a one- to two-week Hormuz disruption. Sell-side models were still running the standard “short-term event shock” playbook. We took the opposite view: this thing has no short-term solution. Not because Iran is strong, but because what’s closing the Strait isn’t the Iranian navy. It’s “Iran’s asymmetric arsenal × the global maritime insurance system.” Air strikes don’t reopen it. Press releases don’t reopen it. A unilateral “we’re open” statement doesn’t reopen it.

On March 9, we put this view at the top of Hormuz Is the Real Battlefield: the market got the duration of the shock wrong, not the magnitude. Seven weeks later, that line has held. Hormuz is still closed today.

2) Crude Duration Was Severely Underpriced, Especially the Back End

The second call, validated over and over the past two months: the long end of the crude curve was extremely underpriced.

Our thesis from day one was duration. No short-term solution: the back end has to be wrong. So we started in the front month, but most of the work after that was bottom-fishing the back end at low levels, over and over. Every time the curve flattened, every time the back end got pushed back down, we treated it as another cheap chance to add. Long the back end, arb the curve. Repeatedly.

3) Even After “Hormuz Reopens” Rumors, We Kept Adding

April was full of “Hormuz is about to reopen” rumors. The April 8 ceasefire, and the April 17 unilateral declaration from Iran’s foreign minister that the Strait was “fully open” (falsified the same weekend by the renewed closure on April 18 and several vessels U-turning in front of the Strait). Every time, the market hammered the back end back to the floor.

We didn’t cut. Reason: none of those rumors touched the core of the problem. The Strait is closed by the insurance system, not by a press release. P&I clubs need weeks to months of continuous, safe transit history before they re-underwrite. Until that changes, Hormuz is closed, and the back end is wrong.

II. What We Got Wrong: Boots on the Ground

When we wrote Boots on the Ground. in late March / early April, the core call was this: long-term, for the dollar, for U.S. hegemony, for the entire U.S. alliance system in the Middle East, a ground operation was actually the most favorable outcome. Yes, expensive. But it would deliver a one-shot, decisive resolution to the Iran problem, and a structural relock of Hormuz as a U.S.-controlled chokepoint.

That’s not the road the U.S. took. It picked another. Possibly the right one in the short term: cheaper, more politically manageable, but with potentially deeper long-run consequences.

But to be clear: this doesn’t change the trade itself. Our trade thesis was never “the U.S. will send ground troops.” It was “Hormuz has no short-term solution.” Ground operation, long blockade, indefinite stalemate: none of these three paths reopens the Strait in the short term. The fact that the back end was underpriced holds under all three.

III. The Stress Test of April 17

The standout day of these two months: April 17. Iran announced that night Hormuz was “fully open.” Brent fell roughly –11% intraday, from around $99 to $88. Sell-side desks calling “$130 oil” the night before flipped overnight to “war over, oil heading to $70.” Long-crude hedge funds were liquidated en masse again, and CTA models went short across the board.

Though strictly speaking, the real “everyone wiped out” day was the April 8 ceasefire. WTI –15% on the day (per Bloomberg, the largest single-day drop in nearly six years), Brent –16%. That session cleaned out the speculative WTI longs that had been chasing the rally for weeks. April 17 took out the next batch: the WTI longs who, after April 8, had bought the dip and bet “this time it’s really over.”

That night I replied the “don’t Panic Sell” tweet on X:

Same argument we’d been making for six weeks: trade the duration, not the headlines. A unilateral statement out of Tehran can’t reopen a Strait that’s been functionally closed by “Iran’s asymmetric arsenal × the global maritime insurance system.” Insurers don’t go back to a war zone on a press release. Until that changes, whatever Iran says, the Strait is closed.

The week after:

• Brent rallied for seven straight sessions, back above $110+

• Marine insurance for Gulf-routed VLCCs didn’t normalize

• Actual transits through Hormuz barely moved

• And the back end of the curve started printing new highs for this war cycle

April 17 was the cleanest stress test this framework has had. The framework held.

IV. The Back End Is Catching Up

1. The pre-war curve was flat. From October 2025 through mid-February 2026, Jul / Aug / Sep ‘26 are basically one line. The market priced the duration risk premium across a 3-month window at zero.

2. Post-war, the curve fans out, in deep backwardation. A $10 spread across a 3-month window is roughly 5–10x normal.

3. At the far right, even the September contract is making new highs. The back end is catching up to the front. Five months from spot is no longer being treated as “post-war normal.” The market is pricing the war into Q3.

V. WTI vs. Brent: The Price Relationship Is Back

One detail from these two months that really matters when you’re picking the instrument: WTI is the speculative vehicle. Brent is the truer transmission of physical reality. And do not trade CL on crypto exchanges if you trade with size. We’ve pointed out on X why the design is broken; in any market with material futures spreads, it’s effectively untradeable for size.

At several points between March and early April, WTI traded above Brent across multiple parts of the curve. A relationship that should normally run $1–3 the other way flipped into a structural inversion. The mechanism is clear:

• Hedge funds wanting to be long crude during the war piled into WTI, not Brent. WTI has deeper U.S.-domestic liquidity, easier retail futures access, and sits better in prime broker workflows.

• WTI is a U.S. inland benchmark. Its direct exposure to Hormuz is smaller than Brent’s. The money flowing in is pure positioning, not physical demand.

• So when ceasefire scares hit (April 8, April 17), the speculative WTI longs were the first to get squeezed. April 8’s –15% single-day move was the real choke point for that wave of WTI specs; April 17 took out the next round. After each crash, WTI clearly underperformed Brent on the rebound. That’s the cleanest evidence we have that WTI was being driven by the news cycle these past six weeks.

This week, Brent’s normal premium over WTI is reasserting itself, which in our model means the market is back to trading geopolitics.

And this spread still has room to go. WTI’s speculative premium is still bleeding out, and Brent’s backwardation is still mean-reverting.

VI. From War to Stalemate

Aside from UAE, the other big story this week: per a WSJ report, Trump is positioning the U.S. Navy’s long-term blockade of Hormuz as a deliberate strategy. Not a transitional posture. A permanent one. The logic he’s pitching: a closed Strait is a cheaper way to pressure Tehran than further escalation.

This is what we meant earlier by “the U.S. chose another path.” It doesn’t end the war. It changes the war’s shape.

It looks more like a war in a stalemate phase: no ceasefire, no resolution, no further escalation, but both sides quietly transferring costs to each other under the table, weaponizing time itself. Strait stays closed. Floor under oil prices is permanently lifted. Duration premium is permanently stretched.

For the curve: the front month doesn’t unwind quickly, and the back end has to keep climbing to catch up.

VII. OPEC / UAE Sidebar

This week’s headline: UAE will exit OPEC effective May 1. The full strategic implications go in a separate note. This is the biggest cartel-level fracture in fifty years, and this time it really is different. But for this review, only one question matters: what’s the short-term price impact?

Short-term: close to zero. Medium-term: this is the single most important downside catalyst on the curve.

Why short-term is zero: even if UAE goes flat-out from May 1, the extra barrels still have to get out of the Gulf. UAE has only one major route bypassing Hormuz, the Habshan–Fujairah pipeline, capacity around 1.5 mb/d. That pipeline is already running near full. With the Strait closed, UAE’s marginal output is structurally walled off behind that pipe. As long as Hormuz stays closed, UAE’s OPEC exit is a political event, not a physical event.

Why medium-term it matters: the moment the Strait reopens, what walks out of UAE is a world of zero quota, zero discipline, ADNOC publicly targeting 5 mb/d of capacity. That pool of latent supply is laying the groundwork for a Saudi–Abu Dhabi market-share war the curve hasn’t begun to price.

VIII. Positioning: Starting to Wind Down

Our view on Hormuz hasn’t changed. This is a long, stalemate-phase event, and the Strait isn’t reopening any time soon. But we have to admit: the crude trade is getting boring. The bulk of the duration premium we argued was warranted has now been priced in. The back end is catching up. Brent–WTI is mean-reverting. From here, we’ll be winding the trade down gradually rather than adding.

But the next trade actually worth the effort isn’t in crude anymore.

The most interesting trade over the next month should be the transmission effects of crude. Once $100+ oil sustains, the market has to start clearly pricing it into the inflation path, into central-bank reaction functions, into the rate curve, into the margin squeeze across different sectors. That’s where the real second act of this war starts. We’ll lay it out separately in upcoming Weekly Signal Playbook notes; won’t unpack it here.

Subscribe now

Yesterday’s issue — The Music Is Still Playing — laid out a simple observation: risk assets are at all-time highs, CTAs are pouring record capital into equities, and early Q1 earnings look strong. The music is loud. The dance floor is packed.

But we also pointed out something uncomfortable: the assumptions behind this rally — Hormuz reopens, oil falls back, inflation cools, the Fed cuts — show no signs of coming true. Brent back about $100. The strait is under a two-way blockade. Trump unilaterally extended the ceasefire on Tuesday — indefinitely, until Iran submits a “unified proposal.” Iran rejected the terms. Both blockades remain in place. And on Thursday, the IRGC fired on three vessels and seized two of them in the strait, as if no ceasefire existed at all.

The music is still playing. And momentum is a powerful thing — rallies driven by mechanical flows and sentiment tend to persist longer than fundamentals justify. The music doesn’t stop until it stops. But the question that matters is when.

This week, five separate fault lines came into sharper focus — each running on its own timeline, each largely invisible to the equity market. And for the first time since this war began, we believe a plausible first window for the music to stop has emerged.

The Rally’s Foundation

Let’s be honest about what’s driving this market.

The S&P 500 is at a record high. The Nasdaq just posted its longest winning streak since 1992. Mag 7 stocks have bounced 20% from their March lows. Goldman Prime data shows CTAs deploying capital at the fastest pace ever recorded. If you’re long, it feels great.

But zoom out one click:

• The rally has no breadth. Equal-weight S&P 500 has not confirmed the new high. This means a handful of mega-cap names are doing all the heavy lifting. When breadth is this narrow, any reversal tends to be violent — because there’s no second line of defense.

• The rally was born from a short squeeze, not conviction. In March, Goldman reported short-selling outpacing long-buying at a 7.6:1 ratio — the fastest global net selling in 13 years. When the ceasefire headline dropped, the “most shorted” basket surged 7.1% in a single day. The rally began as forced covering, not fundamental buying.

• Forward earnings optimism is at 2021 levels. The spread between forward EPS and trailing EPS has reached the same peak that preceded the 2022 bear market. Not a timing signal, but a fragility signal — when expectations are this stretched, any disappointment gets amplified.

None of this means the rally can’t continue. It can. Momentum is powerful. But it means the foundation is narrow, mechanical, and sentiment-driven — exactly the kind of setup where an external shock doesn’t get absorbed. It gets amplified.

Five Threads, One Question

So what could stop the music?

Not earnings — those are fine for now. Not the war headlines — the market has been pricing those out for weeks. Not a single dramatic event.

What could stop the music is plumbing — the invisible infrastructure that keeps the financial system’s daily operations running. And right now, five separate stress points in that plumbing are all running hot:

1. The repo market — America’s financial water pipes — is showing the highest stress readings in 8 years

2. Private credit funds — a $2 trillion market — are hitting redemption gates, and the next quarterly window opens in days

3. The biggest dealers on Wall Street just lost serious money and are pulling back from market-making

4. Systematic trend-followers have piled into the most crowded long position on record — and their sell triggers are clustered at the same price levels

5. The Fed — the traditional backstop for all of the above — has its hands tied by $100 oil and wartime inflation

Each of these is a story on its own. Together, they form a potential chain reaction. The music will stop eventually — it always does. The question is when, and what lights the fuse.

Read more

Updated Apr 23. Markets are pricing peace. Oil is repricing. Bonds are siding with oil.

The Music Is Still Playing

Brent crude is at $103 today. The S&P 500 is at an all-time high.

Just weeks ago, hedge funds were aggressively shorting everything. Goldman Prime Brokerage data showed short-selling outpacing long-buying at a 7.6:1 ratio in March — the fastest global net selling in 13 years. Citi reported institutional short interest on S&P 500 names at a three-year high. Jefferies flagged record short share counts across US-listed ETFs.

Then the ceasefire headline dropped. Goldman’s “most shorted” basket of 50 stocks surged 7.1% in a single day — more than double the S&P’s move. This was an epic short squeeze, not a conviction bid. Sentiment flipped from extreme fear to extreme greed in a matter of days.

Now CTAs (trend-following funds that trade based on price momentum models) are pouring record capital into US equities. The Mag 7 have bounced 20% from their March 30 lows. The Nasdaq just posted its longest winning streak since 1992. Early Q1 earnings are strong. There are plenty of reasons for the music to keep playing.

But the assumptions behind this rally — Hormuz reopens, oil falls back, inflation cools, the Fed cuts — show no signs of coming true.

The orange area shows the spread between S&P 500 forward EPS (next-12-month expected earnings) and trailing EPS (past-12-month actual). A wider gap = greater optimism about future earnings growth. This spread has now reached its 2021 peak — last time, the 2022 bear market followed. Not a prediction, but a signal: when optimism is at extremes, the snapback when expectations roll over tends to be proportionally severe.

Oil and War

Last weekend’s 48-hour farce was a perfect illustration of why Hormuz has no solution.

April 17 (Friday): Iran announced Hormuz was “completely open.” Brent crashed 9% to ~$90. Markets celebrated.

April 18 (Saturday): Less than 24 hours later, the IRGC opened fire on tankers and broadcast “any vessel will be destroyed.” At least 9 tankers made U-turns. The strait shut again.

April 20 (Monday): The US seized an Iranian cargo ship. Brent +8%.

April 22 (Wednesday): The ceasefire expired. Vance cancelled his Pakistan trip. Trump unilaterally extended the ceasefire. Iran’s response: unclear.

April 23 (Thursday — today): Iran’s IRGC fired on three vessels in the strait and seized two of them. A two-way blockade is now in effect: the US blocks Iranian ships, Iran blocks everyone else. Brent is back at $103.

This is not a surprise. It is what Hormuz looks like. As we argued weeks ago in Hormuz Is the Battlefield : the strait isn’t closed by a physical wall. It’s closed by the deadly combination of Iran’s cheap asymmetric weapons and the rational retreat of the global shipping insurance system. The irreplaceable supply gap of 14–16 mb/d (net disruption out of ~20 mb/d total strait transit, after shadow fleet flows and alternative routing) is the largest energy disruption in human history.

Even if a ceasefire is signed tomorrow, supply cannot recover quickly. Insurance rebuilds and shipping restarts alone take weeks — we’ve been making this point since issue one; regular readers know the drill. But here’s the part the market is still underpricing: seven weeks of war have caused massive physical destruction to energy infrastructure. Israel bombed South Pars (Iran’s largest gas field). Iran’s retaliatory strikes hit Qatar’s Ras Laffan LNG hub, UAE aluminum smelters, Kuwaiti tankers, and port facilities across the Gulf. These aren’t valves you turn back on. They need to be rebuilt, repaired, and recommissioned — on timelines measured in months, sometimes years. Even if the strait reopens, physical production capacity will lag far behind shipping recovery. The supply that’s been lost is gone.

Hormuz has no solution. Duration will catch up. Commodity traders booked $20–30 per barrel in Q1 profit — normal levels are measured in cents. That number alone is the most direct proof of the duration thesis. $103 is not “high.” Dated Brent (the spot price for actual physical cargoes, as opposed to futures contracts) hit $144 in early April. Futures are being artificially suppressed $15–20 by financial markets pricing in peace that doesn’t exist. Below is a chart showing different oil prices as settlement on April 15th.

Note the ~$17 gap between Dated Brent (physical delivery, $116.45) and Brent financial (futures, $99.39) — direct evidence that futures are being suppressed $15–20 by peace expectations, as argued above. North American crude (WTI Cushing $87.77, WCS $72.70) trades far below international physical prices, explaining why the US domestic economy absorbs less damage than Europe or Asia.

Core View This Week

The music is still playing.

The gap between physical markets and financial markets has hit its widest level since the war began. Oil is starting to price in a blockade that could last months. Risk assets are pricing a world where Hormuz reopens in two weeks.

White line: Brent crude (left axis). Orange line: MSCI World 12-month forward EPS (right axis). The gray shaded area marks the three months after Russia invaded Ukraine — oil surged and global earnings expectations were revised sharply lower (the “2022 playbook”). This time, AI-driven EPS keeps climbing despite oil at $103. The market is betting it’s different. This chart poses the issue’s central question: is it really?

The rally in risk assets is real, but its foundation is not. The CTA mechanical bid, the “valuations are cheap” excuse, the ceasefire illusion — these are all reasons the music keeps playing. None of them are reasons it won’t stop. The market is in a classic game of musical chairs: everyone knows the premise is fragile, but everyone believes they can get out before the music stops.

Hormuz has no solution. Last weekend’s 48-hour circus — open, fire, shut again — isn’t an accident. It’s the defining feature of this crisis. Even with a ceasefire, insurance rebuilds take 6–8 weeks minimum (per Hapag-Lloyd CEO), shipping recovery takes longer still, and the supply already lost is gone for good. Duration is not a risk. It is the only certain variable.

Read more

But while Iran waits, another catalyst isn’t waiting.

At 10:00 AM Eastern, Kevin Warsh sits down in front of the Senate Banking Committee for the most important job interview of his life. If it goes well, this 55-year-old former Fed governor, Stanford fellow, and Wall Street veteran becomes the seventeenth Chair of the Federal Reserve when Powell’s term expires on May 15.

But “goes well” is a luxury assumption in 2026 Washington.

Subscribe now

An Impossible Brief

Warsh faces three audiences today. They want three different things.

Trump wants to hear: rate cuts. Now. The president told Politico back in December that willingness to cut immediately was his “litmus test” for the job.

The Senate wants to hear: independence. Republican Senator Tillis has publicly declared he won’t vote on any Fed nominee until the DOJ investigation into Powell is resolved. Warren went further, calling Warsh a “Trump sock puppet.”

The market wants to hear: clarity. The oil shock has evaporated this year’s rate cut expectations from two to 0.6. Two-year Treasury yields are up 30bp since the war started. Traders don’t care about nice words. They care whether Warsh is a dove or a hawk.

One man. Three scripts that contradict each other completely. That’s the show today.

Who Is Kevin Warsh?

• Fed governor from 2006 to 2011. Lived through the entire financial crisis.

• Publicly opposed QE2 in 2010. Resigned in 2011. This is his defining career move.

• Joined Druckenmiller’s family office afterward. Research fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution.

• Core label: “limited central banker.” The Fed should do monetary policy and nothing else.

• Father-in-law: Ronald Lauder, Estée Lauder heir, World Jewish Congress president, longtime Trump confidant.

One line to capture his policy philosophy: the Fed does too much, prints too much, talks too much.

His Two Rate Cut Playbooks

Warsh’s core dilemma: Trump wants cuts. Inflation won’t allow them. He’s prepared two narratives to sell the story.

Playbook One: AI Will Kill Inflation For Us

The logic chain is elegant. AI boosts productivity. Costs fall. Inflation retreats naturally. Room to cut opens up.

Warsh explicitly draws the parallel to Greenspan in 1996, when Greenspan resisted rate hike pressure and bet that internet-driven productivity gains would contain inflation. He won that bet.

The problem: 1996 is not 2026.

In 1996, inflation had just dropped to 2%. The fiscal trajectory was heading toward surplus. Globalization was crushing import prices. Today? Inflation has run above target for six straight years. The deficit is at wartime levels. Tariffs and decoupling are pushing costs up. A Middle Eastern war just sent oil into triple digits.

Worse: Greenspan spent a decade building credibility before he made that bet. Former Fed Chair Yellen said it publicly last week: “I don’t think Warsh walks in with that level of credibility.”

Even Warsh’s own allies are hedging. Lavorgna, former senior Treasury advisor and a Warsh supporter, is pulling back: “Kevin is right that AI can be deflationary. But the Iran war changed the equation.”

Playbook Two: Shrink the Balance Sheet, Then Cut

This one is more technical. Also more likely to gain traction inside the FOMC.

The formula: aggressively shrink the Fed’s balance sheet by roughly $1 trillion, which is equivalent to about 50bp of tightening. Then cut rates 50bp to offset. Net effect: easier policy, smaller balance sheet.

Sounds clever. Left hand tightens, right hand loosens.

The constraints are hard.

The Fed holds $1.9 trillion in MBS. Most are low-rate mortgages. Homeowners won’t prepay. Natural runoff takes decades. Actively selling? BofA’s Cabana: “Extremely disruptive to financial markets.” The last time the Fed tried shrinking aggressively, it ended with the 2019 repo market blowup. Cleveland Fed President Hammack has flagged that bank liquidity rules leave limited room to shrink further.

Bottom line: the actual space for balance-sheet-for-rate-cuts is far smaller than what Warsh may have promised Trump behind closed doors.

What the Written Testimony Already Tells Us

Warsh’s prepared remarks were released last night. Key signals:

1. “The Fed must stay in its lane.” This is today’s headline quote. On the surface, it defends independence. In practice, it draws a line: the Fed should stick to monetary policy and stop wading into climate, social equity, and financial regulation. It reassures senators worried about independence while laying groundwork for shrinking the Fed’s scope.

2. No mention of rate views. Zero commentary on whether current rates are appropriate. Standard confirmation hearing playbook: stay vague, give no ammunition.

3. “The Fed must take responsibility for persistent inflation.” This is subtle. It criticizes the Powell-era legacy of loose policy (pleasing Trump) while signaling he’ll take inflation seriously (reassuring markets).

Our read: Bloomberg Economics’ Wilcox mapped Warsh’s possible positioning into three buckets. Traditionalist (maintain the status quo entirely), reformer (narrow the Fed’s scope, overhaul the communication framework), revolutionary (invoke Section 11, redefine the Chair’s power). The written testimony puts Warsh squarely in the reformer camp. No rate cut timeline. No loyalty pledge to Trump. But nothing that would make Trump unhappy either. A confirmation hearing is not a policy meeting. He just needs to not screw up.

Five Questions That Actually Matter

If you can only watch five exchanges today, watch these.

① “If the president asks you to cut rates, what do you do?”

The ultimate independence test. Warsh will almost certainly say monetary policy must be independent of political pressure. Watch the intensity. “Absolutely” and “generally” are very different words.

② “Would you use Section 11 to remove regional Fed presidents?”

This might be the most explosive question of the night. Section 11 of the Federal Reserve Act gives the Board the power to remove regional Fed presidents “for cause.” In 112 years, it has never been used. But it matters now because the Trump administration has already demonstrated similar moves at other independent agencies. If the president pressures a new Chair to fire dissenting regional presidents, what does Warsh do? This is not hypothetical. Regional presidents hold 5 rotating FOMC votes plus New York’s permanent seat. That’s nearly half the committee. If the Chair can fire dissenters, FOMC independence becomes a fiction. This is the ultimate test of whether Warsh is a reformer or a revolutionary.

③ “What’s your view on the dot plot and the SEP?”

Warsh has long argued that Fed officials talk too much. He may push to eliminate the Summary of Economic Projections and the dot plot, which would be the biggest overhaul of FOMC communications since Bernanke. If he signals this clearly, expect a market reaction: no dot plot means traders lose forward guidance, which means rate volatility goes up.

④ “How does the oil shock affect monetary policy?”

The trickiest question on the board. Say “oil is transitory” and risk getting the Powell 2021 treatment. Say “oil will keep pushing inflation higher” and you’ve just announced no cuts are coming. Trump won’t like that. Watch how he walks the tightrope.

⑤ Does Tillis blink?

Republican Senator Tillis holds the key to the confirmation timeline. If he softens his stance before or during the hearing, Warsh’s confirmation becomes high-probability. If he holds firm, we could see a Chair vacancy after Powell’s May 15 expiration.

Three Scenarios, Three Market Reactions

Scenario one is the most likely outcome. The reasoning is simple: the point of a confirmation hearing is to get confirmed, not to pledge allegiance. Nearly every nominee in history has played it vague. Warsh has already pivoted toward moderation in his written testimony.

If scenario one plays out, it matters more than people think.

Here’s why. The market’s pricing of the Fed right now is deeply pessimistic. Futures imply only 0.6 cuts this year. Two-year yields are up 30bp since the war started. Rate volatility (the MOVE Index) is stuck at elevated levels. The bar for a dovish surprise is low. Warsh doesn’t need to say “I will cut rates.” He just needs to not close the door. One sentence like “if the data allows, we have room to adjust policy” would be enough to give the front end some relief.

The timing matters even more. The S&P just made new highs from the war low in three weeks, but the bond market hasn’t followed at all. The equity-bond divergence is at an extreme. If Warsh’s dovish tone confirms the narrative that the Fed won’t pour gasoline on a wartime fire, this divergence could start closing: bonds rally, dollar softens, risk assets get another leg.

Flip it around. If Warsh surprises hawkish, the current equity-bond gap tells a different story: bonds were right, stocks were wrong. The drawdown will hurt.

One Last Thing: Hearing Dove ≠ Policy Dove

The biggest trap today is mapping Warsh’s hearing tone directly onto future policy.

Reality check: the Fed Chair is not a dictator. The FOMC has 12 votes. Warsh’s two rate cut narratives, AI productivity and balance-sheet-for-cuts, have almost no buy-in inside the committee. The first requires Greenspan-level credibility that takes years to build. The second is constrained by MBS liquidity and bank reserve requirements.

More important: this hearing coincides with the Iran ceasefire expiration. If today delivers Warsh-dovish plus ceasefire-extended at the same time, expect a risk-on wave. If it’s Warsh-hawkish plus ceasefire-collapses, volatility gets repriced.

Two catalysts stacking. That’s the real trade today.

Subscribe now

Garrett’s Signal · Independent macro and cross-asset research

Updated Apr 16. The market got bored of Iran. The physical shortage didn’t.

Trading the Calendar

The market is bored of Iran.

Four TACOs. A ceasefire that changed nothing. One 21-hour marathon in Islamabad that produced nothing. A leaked framework. A blockade announcement. Trump saying “close to over” on Fox, then sending 6,000 more troops the same week. The market has seen this movie so many times it stopped watching. S&P erased every point it lost since the war started. Nasdaq hit a record. BTC touched $76k. Oil dropped back to $95.

Iran fatigue. We get it.

That’s exactly when the real shortage hits. Not when the headlines get worse. When everyone stops watching.

Seven weeks in. From day one we said the market was mispricing duration. That Hormuz had no quick fix. That every ceasefire was an intermission, not an ending. Seven weeks later, the strait is still shuttered. And the data coming out of the physical market this week is the most alarming since the war began.

Last week in the North Sea, the most important physical crude market on earth, traders submitted 40 bids for cargoes. Four were met by offers. Forty to four. By Wednesday, that ratio had flipped: seven offers, two bids, both withdrawn. That’s not a signal that the shortage is over. It’s a signal that $144 physical crude is already destroying demand at the margin. The physical market is still in crisis. It’s just starting to price its own pain.

Trafigura and Gunvor were bidding $22 a barrel above Dated Brent for late April and early May delivery. Nigerian crude premiums hit $25 a barrel over benchmark. Before the war, that number was less than $3.

Dated Brent hit $144 on April 8, hours before the ceasefire was announced. Brent futures traded at $109 the same day. A $35 gap. Normal is $1 to $2. That gap is the physical market screaming what the futures market refuses to hear.

ADNOC’s Sultan al Jaber put it plainly last week: “The final cargoes that transited Hormuz before the conflict are now arriving at their destinations. The 40-day gap in global energy flows is truly exposed.” (The “40-day gap” refers to when most pre-war barrels have been consumed. JPMorgan’s April 20 estimate marks when literally the last tanker clears.)

JPMorgan’s oil team confirmed the math. The last tanker to clear Hormuz on February 28 reaches its destination around April 20. After that, every pre-closure barrel on the planet is gone. The developed world’s oil stockpiles could hit the minimum levels needed to keep refineries running by early May. Asian refiners cut only 2 million barrels a day (far less than expected). The gap is being filled by burning through reserves and killing demand. That’s not a solution. That’s a countdown.

Look at what’s happening on the ground. Japanese refiners are booking smaller ships to squeeze through the Panama Canal faster. Chinese refiners pushed Vancouver crude imports to a record this month. India doubled Venezuelan crude purchases in the first week of April. Traders at Asian refineries told Bloomberg they’re “no longer focused on price, simply seeking barrels for energy security.” Energy Aspects warned that US exports are running so high there may not be enough crude left for American refineries.

US gasoline inventories are at the smallest in 16 years. Jet fuel and diesel above $200 a barrel.

The market is pricing a ceasefire. The physical market is pricing a siege.

The Negotiation Gap

The physical shortage is driven by Hormuz. Hormuz is driven by the war. So we still have to read the room.

Our read hasn’t changed. We don’t think a deal gets done.

The single biggest obstacle is uranium. Iran’s foreign ministry said last week that the right to enrich is non-negotiable. The “level and type” are open to discussion, but the principle is off the table. On the other side, Israel’s defense minister said all highly enriched uranium must be physically removed from Iran. Trump said he’s unhappy with reports that the US proposed a 20-year moratorium on enrichment, calling it insufficient. After 21 hours of talks in Islamabad, Vance left empty-handed. Trump posted that Iran was “very unyielding as to the single most important issue.”

This is not a gap you close with another round of talks. Both sides are asking for things the other side can’t give.

Then there’s Hormuz. For Iran, it’s the only card that makes the US feel real pain. First time in decades that leverage has been tested, and it worked. For America, the stakes go beyond oil prices. We wrote about this in Hormuz Is the Battlefield and Trump Blinked Again: free passage through the strait is what backs the dollar’s security guarantee. Seven weeks of closure have done more to erode that premium than any BRICS summit ever could. Both sides know what Hormuz represents. Neither can afford to give it up.

So here are the three paths from here.

Path one: a deal. There are two versions. In the first, Iran gives up enrichment rights and Hormuz leverage. Nothing in the past seven weeks suggests either side is close to that trade. In the second, the US concedes some form of Iranian control over Hormuz. Oil drops short-term. But that’s not peace. It’s a transfer of oil wealth and strategic power from the Gulf states to Iran. Saudi and the UAE won’t accept that quietly. You’re trading one conflict for another. And a Saudi-Iran power struggle over Hormuz revenue would keep oil elevated for years, not weeks. Either version of a deal is the least likely outcome.

Path two: the war resumes. The ceasefire expires April 22. The Pentagon just sent 6,000 more troops on the USS George H.W. Bush. Ground operations are still on the table. Iran’s military commander called the US blockade “a prelude to a breach of the ceasefire” and threatened to shut down all exports in the Gulf, the Sea of Oman, and the Red Sea. If fighting restarts, oil goes parabolic.

Path three: the stalemate drags on. Another extension. More talks. No resolution. Hormuz stays functionally closed. This is the most likely outcome. It’s also the one the market is least prepared for, because it means the shortage doesn’t spike and crash. It grinds. Week after week. Inventories drawing down. Refiners cutting runs. Prices staying elevated with no catalyst for relief.

All three paths lead to higher oil. One is a spike. One is a slow bleed upward. And even the “deal” path, if it hands Iran the strait, creates a new instability that reprices the entire Middle East. There is no path back to $70 oil from here.

Even in that least likely scenario, restoring normal shipping takes 6 to 8 weeks minimum (Hapag-Lloyd’s CEO said this on day one of the ceasefire). Insurance markets are still frozen. Lloyd’s hasn’t reinstated coverage. 800+ vessels remain trapped in the Gulf.

What Comes Next

Read more

Not with a peace deal. Not by reopening the strait. By doing the opposite: shutting it down himself.

Sunday night, after 21 hours of failed talks in Islamabad, Trump posted on Truth Social: “Effective immediately, the United States Navy will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz.”

CENTCOM confirmed: Monday 10am ET. All Iranian ports. All nations. No exceptions.

The world’s most important energy chokepoint just changed hands. For six weeks, Hormuz was Iran’s weapon. Tehran charged $2 million per transit. Allowed friends through, blocked enemies. Earned $139 million a day in oil revenue while its neighbors’ exports collapsed 80%.

Now the US Navy owns the chokepoint.

This is the single smartest tactical move Trump has made in this war. It is also almost certainly not going to work.

The Weapon Swap

There’s a concept that explains exactly what just happened: the chokepoint effect. Whoever controls a critical node in a global network holds coercive power over everyone who depends on it.

Before the war, the US was the guardian of Hormuz. Since World War II, the American navy kept the strait open so oil could flow and the global economy could function. That role was the backbone of Pax Americana. It’s why Southeast Asian nations trusted Washington’s freedom-of-navigation patrols in the South China Sea. It’s why Gulf monarchies parked their sovereign wealth in Treasuries.

Iran flipped the script on February 28. The moment US and Israeli jets hit Iranian soil, Tehran shut the strait. Selectively. Strategically. Turned a 21-mile waterway into the most expensive toll road on Earth.

For six weeks, Iran controlled the chokepoint. Iran had the coercive power.

Trump just took it back.

It’s a much smarter move than seizing Kharg Island. Seized oil cargoes could, in theory, be sold on the open market — cutting Tehran out of its own revenue stream. The playbook: blockade, interdict, squeeze.

On paper, the logic is clean. Iran was making more money during the war than before it. Its neighbors were bleeding. The only way to turn Iran’s economic advantage into a liability was to take the weapon away.

So Trump took it.

Why It’s Smart

Let’s give credit where it’s due. Two things make this move tactically brilliant.

One: it reverses Iran’s economics.

Before the blockade, Iran exported 1.7 million barrels a day. At war-inflated prices, that’s $139 million daily. More than pre-war. Iraq’s exports dropped 80%. Saudi rerouted everything through a pipeline running near max capacity. Iran was the only Gulf producer making money from this war.

The blockade, if enforced, zeros that out.

Two: it’s cheaper than invasion.

Seizing Kharg Island (Iran’s oil export hub) would require a ground force sitting on hostile terrain within range of every Iranian missile. A naval blockade operates at arm’s length. The US already has three carrier groups in theater, 18+ guided missile destroyers. The infrastructure is there.

So what’s not to like?

Hold that thought.

The Real Shift

Before we get to the problems, it’s worth sitting with what just changed at a level above tactics.

For six weeks, the United States has been reactive. Iran shut Hormuz; the US called for talks. Iran set transit fees; the US complained. Iran selected who passed and who didn’t; the US watched. The ceasefire was Iran’s framing. The Pakistan venue was Iran’s preference. The 10-point proposal was Tehran’s opening bid.

The blockade breaks that pattern. For the first time since February 28, Washington is setting the terms of engagement — not responding to Tehran’s.

This matters more than it looks.

Controlling a chokepoint isn’t just about who has ships in the water. It’s about who the world believes is in charge. For six weeks, every shipping company, every insurer, every oil trader priced their risk around a single assumption: Iran decides who sails through Hormuz. As of Monday 10am ET, that pricing anchor flipped. America decides.

Whether the blockade leaks — and it will — is almost secondary. What matters is the narrative recalibration. Markets, allies, and adversaries all adjust based on who they believe holds the initiative. And right now, for the first time in this war, that’s Washington.

Here’s the part worth sitting with: the US has spent six weeks looking like a superpower that started a war it couldn’t control. Every TACO cycle — the maximalist threat, the last-minute walk-back, the “ceasefire” that wasn’t — reinforced the perception that Trump was improvising. The blockade is the first move that looks like strategy rather than reaction. It’s the first time the US has dictated the tempo instead of responding to it.

That’s not nothing. In a conflict where perception shapes escalation dynamics as much as missiles do, the question of who holds the initiative is itself a market-moving variable. It changes how allies hedge. It changes how Beijing calculates. It changes how Tehran’s internal factions argue about what comes next.

But seizing the initiative is not the same as winning. And the cost of this particular initiative may be larger than the move itself.

Why It Won’t Work

Here’s the problem, stated plainly: the blockade assumes economic pressure will force Iran to the table. It won’t.

Iran has 88 million people, a battle-hardened Revolutionary Guard, a nuclear threshold capability, and proxy forces from Lebanon to Yemen to Iraq. This is not a regime that folds under financial squeeze.

Four reasons.

1. Iran won’t surrender. It will escalate.

Bloomberg Economics published their assessment within hours of the announcement. Their read: Iran will treat the blockade as an act of war. The two-week ceasefire is effectively dead. IRGC hardliners will find attacking US ships in the strait “irresistible.”

IRGC’s own statement confirms this: any military vessel approaching Hormuz “under any pretext” will be considered a ceasefire violation and “will be dealt with severely.”

Supreme Leader Khamenei posted on Telegram: “Iran will definitely bring the management of the Strait of Hormuz to a new stage.”

That’s not the language of a regime about to fold.

2. China won’t let Iran die.

China imports 80% of Iran’s oil. Beijing has no interest in watching its primary alternative crude supplier get economically strangled by the US Navy. Bloomberg Economics flagged the obvious lever: China could use its dominance in rare earth supply chains as counter-pressure on Washington.

Xi just helped broker the ceasefire. He has $270 billion invested across the Middle East. The last thing he wants is for Trump to control who gets oil and who doesn’t.

Our read: China will find ways to keep Iranian oil flowing. Shadow fleets, ship-to-ship transfers, overland routes through Pakistan and Turkey. This is what happened under every previous round of Iran sanctions. The blockade makes it harder, not impossible.

3. The blockade has a leak.

CENTCOM’s own statement contains the escape hatch. Read it carefully:

“CENTCOM forces will not impede freedom of navigation for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz to and from non-Iranian ports.”

So a Chinese tanker sailing from an Omani port through Hormuz to Shanghai? Not blocked. The US is only blockading Iranian ports, not the strait itself. That distinction matters. Iran-linked vessels flying flags of convenience, loading at non-Iranian terminals, routing through third-party ports: the workarounds exist.

Most countries’ oil export infrastructure is concentrated and exposed. Iran’s is distributed — and it has six weeks of practice running a grey-market oil operation.

4. The escalation ladder goes both ways.

This is the part that should keep you up at night.

If the blockade actually hurts Iran’s revenue, Tehran has options that go far beyond Hormuz.

Red Sea. Iran’s Houthi proxies in Yemen have already demonstrated they can disrupt Bab el-Mandeb, the chokepoint at the southern end of the Red Sea. In 2023-24, Houthi attacks forced global shipping to reroute around Africa. Bloomberg Economics warned: “Blockade may trigger Houthi action against Bab el-Mandeb.” Saudi Arabia just reopened its Red Sea export pipeline. Bad timing.

Gulf infrastructure. Iran has already struck energy infrastructure across the region. The 2019 Abqaiq attack took out half of Saudi production with drones that cost a fraction of a Patriot interceptor. If Iran decides “nobody sells oil,” the tools are cheap and proven.

Nuclear breakout. This was the reason the talks collapsed. Vance said Iran refused to commit to not pursuing a nuclear weapon. If Iran concludes that economic strangulation is coming regardless, the incentive to sprint toward a weapon only increases.

The logic is cold but clear: a cornered regime with nothing to lose doesn’t negotiate. It escalates.

The Paradox

Here’s where it gets interesting for markets.

The blockade is designed to end the war faster by squeezing Iran’s economy. But the most likely effect is the opposite: it extends the war by eliminating Iran’s incentive to negotiate.

Before the blockade, Iran had leverage (Hormuz) and revenue (oil exports). It could afford to talk. It had something to trade.

After the blockade, Iran loses its revenue but doesn’t gain anything. Hormuz is no longer Iran’s to offer. The only thing Iran has left to bargain with is its nuclear program and its proxy network. Neither of those is something Tehran gives up voluntarily.

The diplomatic space just got smaller, not larger.

There’s a deeper paradox, too. By blockading Hormuz, the United States just violated the principle it spent 80 years defending.

Ask the question plainly: if the US is willing to shut down Hormuz when it suits American interests, what stops the PLA Navy from pushing things a bit farther in the South China Sea? What stops anyone?

The US didn’t fail to keep Hormuz open. It chose to close it. That’s a different thing. And the precedent it sets is worse.

America was the lock. Now America is the key. And once you’ve shown the world that the guardian of the sea lanes is willing to weaponize them, you can’t un-show it.

Four Scenarios

We don’t predict. We prepare. Here’s the decision matrix.

Our base case: Scenario 2. The stalemate grind.

Iran doesn’t fold because it can’t. Surrendering on nukes and Hormuz would end the regime. China keeps the economic lifeline alive through workarounds. The blockade becomes another layer of pressure, not a knockout blow. Oil stays in the $95-120 band. The war grinds on.

But here’s what matters for positioning: Scenario 3 is a 25% probability tail event with 3-5x the market impact of the base case. That asymmetry is why we stay long crude, long gold, long defense. The expected value of the tail is larger than the expected value of the base.

What We’re Watching This Week

Monday 10am ET: Blockade goes live. First 24 hours of enforcement data. How many ships are turned back? Does China test the perimeter?

Iran’s response: IRGC statement said any approach is a ceasefire violation. Watch for drone or missile probes. First shots fired at a US vessel = Scenario 3 accelerates.

Oil open: Brent futures Sunday night. The gap-up tells you how much the market believes the blockade is real.

China’s move: Does Beijing issue a public statement? Does it send naval escorts for its tankers? The shadow fleet activation timeline is the key variable.

IMF Spring Meetings (Apr 13-18): Global finance ministers in Washington. The hallway conversations matter more than the communiqués. Are they coordinating a response, or is everyone on their own?

The Bottom Line

Trump just made the smartest move of the war. He took Iran’s weapon and turned it against them.

But smart isn’t the same as effective.

The blockade works if Iran folds under economic pressure, accepts US terms, gives up its nuclear ambitions, and reopens Hormuz on Washington’s schedule.

Iran will not fold. It has proxies across four countries, a nuclear threshold program, an 88-million-person population with a revolution-forged national identity, and a patron in Beijing that will not let it be strangled.

The most likely outcome: the blockade becomes another chapter in a war that has no clean ending. Oil stays elevated. The cascade continues. The world adjusts to a new normal where the country that built the global shipping order is now the one disrupting it.

This is not a stable equilibrium. Something will break — an IRGC provocation, a Chinese escort convoy, US boots on the ground, a Trump walk-back, a second round of talks that nobody expects. The blockade is a move, not an endgame. And every move in this war has triggered the next escalation faster than the last.

The market has priced the blockade. It has not priced what comes after.

Garrett’s Signal covers macro, war, and markets at the intersection where most analysis stops.

No news. No noise. Just signal.

Updated Apr 9. Less than 24 hours after the ceasefire, three terms have already been violated. Hormuz is still closed.

The Ceasefire Illusion

Tuesday night, the world exhaled. Oil dropped 15%. S&P rallied 2%. VIX fell back to pre-war levels. TACO Tuesday, they called it. Another Trump bluff. Another walkback. Another reason to buy.

Wednesday morning, 10 ships passed through Hormuz. All bulk carriers. Zero tankers. Lloyd’s didn’t reinstate coverage. AIS signal interference hit 43%, 2.5x normal levels. Dubai spot still at $128.

Wednesday night, Ghalibaf said three ceasefire terms had already been violated. Israel launched its largest airstrike on Lebanon since the war began: 100+ targets in 10 minutes. Hegseth demanded Iran hand over enriched uranium or the US would “take it out.” Vance called it a “fragile truce.”

He was right.

Thursday Asia session: the relief rally died. MSCI APAC -0.9%. Brent bounced +2.5% back to ~$97. BTC -0.5% to $71,021.

Paper markets priced peace. Physical markets didn’t move an inch.

Our read: the market is slow, but slow doesn’t mean correct. Oil is consolidating in the $95-97 range, waiting for a confirmation signal. The physical layer already gave one. Zero tankers through. Insurance not reinstated. 800+ vessels trapped in the Persian Gulf. Hapag-Lloyd’s CEO says restoring normal shipping takes 6-8 weeks minimum. Verisk Maplecroft says two weeks won’t clear the backlog.

This is not a TACO. Tariff walkbacks cost Trump credibility, nothing more. A ceasefire requires the other side to execute. Iran’s terms: retain control of Hormuz, keep uranium enrichment rights, US withdrawal, full sanctions relief. America’s terms: hand over uranium, open the strait immediately, denuclearize. That’s not a negotiation gap. That’s two different wars.

Conflicts of this scale don’t end with a two-week ceasefire. History has no precedent for it. Wars end when one side is broken militarily, economically, or politically. Neither side is anywhere close. Friday’s Islamabad talks, with Vance, Witkoff, and Kushner at the table, won’t change that.

The ceasefire is an intermission. Not an ending.

Keep trading the escalation logic.

Regime Assessment

🔴 Current Regime: RISK-OFF · Ceasefire Illusion Phase

Read more

That’s not how scarcity works.

When a critical resource goes into deficit, people don’t ration. They hoard. They speculate. And the ones with surplus? They wait for you to collapse, then buy your best assets for pennies.

Those three behaviors turn a manageable gap into a civilization-level problem.

Hoarding, speculation, and vultures

Hoarding comes first. The moment scarcity hits the headlines, everyone panic-buys. Not because they need it. Because they’re afraid. They aren’t buying barrels. They’re buying the feeling of safety. That panic alone can double the effective shortage.

Then comes speculation. Oil gets scarce, traders pile in, prices detach from fundamentals. This isn’t theory. It’s the iron law of commodity markets. Every energy crisis in history has played out this way.

The last layer is the cruelest: waiting for you to die.

Why those with oil aren’t selling

Oman spot crude is trading at $150 to $200 a barrel. But oil-short countries can’t always buy. Dollar-rich players have already locked up supply.

Some countries are sitting on full reserves and still won’t sell to their neighbors.

Why? Because they see a bigger play. Wait for debt crises. Wait for social unrest. Then acquire the best companies on earth at 80% off. A firm worth $50 billion in normal times might go for $5 billion when a country is falling apart. No soldiers required.

Berkshire is sitting on nearly $375 billion in cash. An all-time record. The buildup started long before this war, twelve straight quarters of net selling. But the timing of the deployment is what matters.

What is Buffett waiting for?

This playbook is 3,000 years old

Genesis 47. Joseph helps Pharaoh stockpile grain during seven good years. Then seven years of famine hit. Egyptians pay with money first. When the money runs out, they trade livestock. When the livestock is gone, they hand over land.

By the end of the famine, Pharaoh owns almost everything in Egypt. No war. No violence. Just control of a scarce resource, and patience.

The Hormuz blockade runs the same logic. Conquering a country by force takes hundreds of thousands of troops. Shutting one strait and waiting? That takes a navy and time.

Joseph, at least, was trying to save people. The players circling this crisis are not.

This is why a 20% oil deficit can kill the world. Not because there isn’t enough oil. Because some are hoarding it, some are trading it, and some are waiting for you to go under.

Subscribe now

Collapse is instant

Most people think economic crises unfold gradually.

They don’t.

Lehman Brothers was operating normally the day before it filed. Silicon Valley Bank had no visible crisis 48 hours before it died.

Systemic collapse works like a bank run. When everyone trusts the bank, it functions perfectly. The moment confidence breaks, everyone withdraws at once. The bank doesn’t die slowly. It dies in 48 hours.

The global energy market is in this exact state right now. Everyone betting Trump resolves this quickly. Everyone still trusting the system. But if confidence cracks (reserves running dry, IEA confirming the gap has doubled) the selloff hits like a bank run. Not gradual. Instant.

Five weeks in

Note: Hormuz normally carries ~20M bbl/day, so the ~18–19M bbl/day lost from Hormuz is larger than the 8–11.4M bbl/day global supply gap. The difference is being partially filled by SPR releases, alternative pipeline routes (Saudi East-West, UAE bypasses), and non-Hormuz producers. That fill is temporary.

This already exceeds the 2022 Russia-Ukraine energy shock. It is being called the worst energy crisis in human history.

Our read: that label is probably right.

Strategic reserves: buffer time ≠ safety

Two things are keeping markets afloat: strategic petroleum reserve releases, and Trump’s rhetoric.

These numbers have problems:

• SPR drawdown has a physical ceiling (about 2M bbl/day historically). Actual gap-filling capacity is well below the headline figures.

• OPEC+ has 2.5 to 3.5M bbl/day of spare capacity on paper. But the export routes run through Hormuz. That capacity is stranded.

• Several countries’ reserve figures involve delayed deliveries and overstated inventories.

• Once the buffer period ends, the gap widens fast.

Reserves buy time. They don’t buy a solution. The market has a window. That window is closing.

Markets are sleepwalking

The market right now is surreal:

• Israel just took its heaviest missile strike since the war started. Stocks: flat.

• Chemical plants across Japan, Korea, Singapore, Thailand cutting output or shutting down. Markets: not pricing it.

• Australia moved to work-from-home over fuel shortages. Korea imposed nationwide driving restrictions. Equities: still rallying.

• Trump says Iran is negotiating every day. Iran denies it every day. Stocks: bounce.

Semis still ripping. AI plays still in vogue. Quant and algo trading amplifying the optimism. But look closer. A lot of things are already red. Everyone is just pretending not to see.

This divergence between markets and the real economy won’t last. It never does.

Iran’s hand

A lot of people are betting Trump fixes this fast. Look at Iran’s position.

The IRGC has said it plainly: “The Strait of Hormuz will not open because of Trump’s absurd performance. We have not conducted any negotiations and will not do so.”

Then there’s also the communication problem. Senior leadership won’t touch phones or encrypted apps for anything operational (Israel killed Haniyeh in Tehran, blew up Hezbollah’s pagers — the paranoia is justified). So real communication between Tehran and Washington runs through intermediaries: Oman, Iraq, Swiss back-channels. Each round trip takes days.

Iran’s calculus

Iran doesn’t need to win. It needs to outlast.

• The strait is its biggest card. It has found America’s soft spot.

• Russia is backing it. China is providing “humanitarian aid.” It’s not going hungry.

• Strait toll revenues alone could bring in tens of billions per year.

• If the US blinks or gets bogged down, Iran keeps the strait. The wealth that once belonged to Gulf monarchies flows to Tehran.

Trump’s bind

• Don’t strike: The petrodollar system unravels.

• Strike: Oil spikes further. A prolonged war means Gulf crude can’t ship. The money pipeline feeding US equities dries up.

• The real risk: Sharp dollar devaluation. If the petrodollar loses its anchor, every dollar-denominated asset gets repriced.

Nobody in the White House has a clean answer for this. That’s the scariest part.

What to watch

1. US SPR weekly report. Reserve depletion rate is the most direct signal.

2. Brent spot vs. futures curve. Deep contango means the market is pricing a long shortage.

3. Trump’s tone. Rhetoric getting louder = situation getting worse.

4. Asian factory utilization. Chemical, auto, and semiconductor output drops are the leading indicator.

5. Fertilizer prices. More honest than oil prices, which are being distorted by verbal intervention.

6. IEA monthly report. If the mid-April update confirms buffer exhaustion, confidence could snap overnight.

The timeline

Based on Dallas Fed data: if the strait stays closed through Q2, annualized GDP contracts 2.9%. Multiple institutions have been revising recession odds upward.

The probabilities below are conditional: they assume the blockade persists into each phase. If the strait reopens earlier, later phases don’t apply.

Now → April 15: Reserves still flowing

Strategic reserves still being released. Trump still talking. GDP impact: minimal. If the April 6 “ultimatum” produces nothing, the gap starts widening fast.

Global economic breakdown probability: 20–30%

Late April → Early May: Reserves running dry

National reserves bottom out. IEA confirms the gap has doubled. Real-economy hits concentrate: fertilizer shortages, delayed spring planting, chemical shutdowns, LNG crunch, European industrial cuts.

Probability: 45–65%. This is the inflection.

Mid-May → End of June: Real economy deteriorates

Oil breaks $150 to $200. High prices suppress all activity. Countries scramble for Russian and Indian supply with limited success. Europe and Asia enter recession first.

Probability: 65–80%

After June: Systemic collapse

No alternative supply routes materialize. Stagflation plus unemployment plus central bank paralysis. Raise rates and $40 trillion in US debt becomes unserviceable. Hold and inflation runs away. Food crises. Social unrest. Gold probably hits new all-time highs.

Probability: 80–90%

Escalation scenario: If the US strikes Iranian energy infrastructure directly, add 20% to every phase.

Subscribe now

The 1973 oil crisis. Lehman 2008. The Russia-Ukraine shock of 2022.

The pattern never changes. Before the data confirms it, everyone pretends not to see. After it confirms, the real selling begins.

We are in the “before.”

April 15 to 25 is the window. The ultimatum is the first catalyst. Strait reopens, we go back to normal. It doesn’t, or things escalate, and markets front-run the collapse.

The world doesn’t need to run out of oil to break. It just needs enough people to believe it might.

Garrett’s Signal · Macro · Geopolitics · Markets

Five weeks ago, when US and Israeli jets hit Iran on February 28, the market priced a surgical air campaign. Two weeks, maybe three. Hormuz reopens. Oil spikes and fades. Back to business.

We said no.

Our call from Day 1: this war escalates before it de-escalates eventually. The most likely path is boots on the ground followed by a long, grinding conflict. Hormuz stays disrupted far longer than anyone wants to model. We laid out the logic in our duration framework, our Hormuz pricing model, and our war variable analysis. The core thesis: Iran doesn’t need to win. It just needs to make the war expensive enough that Washington looks for an exit. And the exit won’t come with a clean reopening of the strait.

Five weeks later, every part of that call is being validated.

Hormuz is still shut. Brent closed around $110. The Pentagon is preparing for weeks of ground operations. Trump’s war aims have drifted from “denuclearization” to “back to the stone ages.” He still can’t define what victory looks like.

Ground troops are the escalation climax we’ve been tracking. Marines and paratroopers are staging in theater. The moment is close.

But here’s what matters more than the next airstrike or the next ultimatum: oil.

Oil is not a side effect of this war. Oil is the war. Equities, bonds, crypto, the Fed, your grocery bill — all downstream. Get the oil call right and the rest follows. Get it wrong and nothing else you do matters.

WTI just settled higher than Brent for the first time since 2022. That got everyone’s attention.

Good. It should.

Subscribe now

WTI Above Brent: What Everyone Is Asking

April 2. WTI settled at $111.54. Brent settled at $109.03. A $2.51 WTI premium, the widest since 2009.

Two weeks earlier, WTI was trading at a big discount to Brent.

Everyone wants to know what happened. Here’s the short version and the real version.

The Short Version: Contract Timing

WTI’s front month delivers in May. Brent’s front month already rolled to June. When supply is this tight, one month earlier = pay more. WTI just happens to deliver sooner.

Adi Imsirovic, 35-year oil trading veteran now at Oxford, said buyers are paying almost $30/barrel more to take Brent cargoes a month early, on top of historically high shipping and insurance costs. In 35 years, he’s never seen anything like it.

That’s the mechanical explanation. It’s correct. It’s also incomplete.

The Real Version: The Curve Is Moving

The WTI-Brent convergence isn’t just a front-month quirk. Bloomberg flagged that it’s visible across multiple contract months, all the way down the strip. The entire curve is repricing.

Why?

Asian demand rotation.

Asian refiners bought ~10 million barrels of US crude for May loading in late March. Another ~8 million the week before. Kpler forecasts US-to-Asia exports hitting 1.7 million barrels/day in April, up from 1.3 million in March. China, South Korea, Japan, Exxon’s Singapore refinery. Everyone is buying American barrels because that’s what’s available.

Hormuz is shut. Murban crude, Abu Dhabi’s flagship and closest substitute to WTI, is gone from the global market. WTI is now the world’s swing barrel.

This isn’t a panic buy. This is a flow regime change.

Now look at the forward curve.

The curve is saying: this is temporary. Back to normal by Christmas.

Our read: the curve is dreaming.

Three Endgames. One Base Case.

We laid this framework out in our Weekly Signal Playbook. Nothing has changed since. If anything, the base case has gotten stronger.

There are only three ways this war ends:

Endgame 1 is politically impossible. Endgame 2: the terrain, force requirements, and guerrilla dynamics all argue against it. Iran is three times the size of Iraq, twice the population, and the mountains don’t forgive. This isn’t 2003.

Endgame 3 is the base case, and by a wide margin. A long grind means Hormuz stays disrupted. Oil stays elevated. Structurally, not temporarily. The forward curve is heavily mispricing this.

Here’s the part most people miss: if we look at the oil industry alone, a prolonged war might actually serve US strategic interests. Middle Eastern production capacity gets destroyed. Global buyers pivot to North American energy because there’s nothing else left. And higher prices? They incentivize US producers to ramp output (more rigs, more shale). Look at the chart below: every major price spike in history triggered a US production surge within 12–18 months.

The only cost the US needs to manage is domestic: keeping gas prices from staying above $4/gallon long enough to trigger political backlash. That’s a pain threshold, not a war-ending condition.

The Math

Brent at $110 with Hormuz shut is not the ceiling. It’s the starting point. Under our base case, $120–150 is where this settles for as long as the strait stays closed.

Every week that passes depletes inventories. UBS: global stocks hit their five-year average at end of March. That was before the latest round of escalation. Macquarie: $200 if the war drags past June with Hormuz shut — 40% odds.

The prompt spread (the gap between the two nearest Brent contracts) blew out to $8.59/barrel. The market is paying an 8% premium for one month of earlier delivery. That’s 2008 levels of desperation.

2008 didn’t have 15% of global supply physically blockaded.

Every model, every curve, every year-end target on the Street is built on the same assumption: this ends. Hormuz reopens. Oil normalizes. Life goes back to the way it was.

Our bet: it doesn’t.

The back end of the curve hasn’t caught up.

The market has priced the war. It has not priced the war lasting.

Until Hormuz reopens, every dip in crude is a gift. That’s our position and we’re not hedging it.

Oil is node one. When boots hit the ground and there’s no quick victory — when the war settles into the long grind we’ve been calling since Day 1, the repricing won’t stop at crude. It will cascade through rates, currencies, equities, and credit, in that order. That’s where we’re going next.

Subscribe now

Garrett’s Signal covers macro, war, and markets at the intersection where most analysis stops.

Updated Apr 2. Trump’s national address = hot war commitment. Escalation is now irreversible.

The Irreversible Turn

Since the war began, every major call we’ve made has played out — no war exit, no Hormuz solution, oil gap, importers exposure. All of it. This week’s brief optimism rally was exactly what we expected: a positioning-driven short squeeze, not a fundamental shift. And then came Trump’s national address.

That speech sent a dual signal. On one hand, Trump claimed operations were “nearing completion” and floated a 2-3 week timeline. On the other, he threatened to strike Iranian power infrastructure and “hit extremely hard” if no deal materializes. Markets reflected both sides — oil surged 6%+ (pricing escalation) while the dollar weakened (pricing a possible off-ramp).

Our read: the “nearing completion” framing is political posturing for domestic consumption. The escalation threat is the operational signal. When you’re deploying a third carrier strike group and threatening to destroy a country’s electrical grid, the direction of travel is clear. Last weekend we laid out the case that Easter could mark the point of no return for hot war escalation. After this speech, we’re closer to that threshold than most people realize. The market still hasn’t priced the irreversibility.

Let me be direct: once you choose hot war, you don't get to walk it back. The world is undergoing a structural shift that most market participants haven't even begun to price. Everything below flows from this single premise.

So let’s think about the three possible endgames:

1. US completely exits the Middle East — politically impossible, near-zero probability.

2. Iranian regime change — extremely difficult in the near term. The terrain, force requirements, and guerrilla dynamics all argue against it. We’ve been through this analysis before.

3. Protracted war of attrition — this is the base case, and by a wide margin.

Now here’s where it gets interesting. A prolonged war might actually serve US strategic interests:

• Extended conflict = Middle Eastern oil production capacity gets systematically destroyed = global buyers are forced to pivot toward North American energy and energy reform in longer term.

• The cost the US needs to manage is domestic sentiment — specifically, keeping gas prices from staying above $4/gallon long enough to create political backlash.

The North American energy pivot has a real variable that shouldn’t be hand-waved away. Extraction costs, capital investment cycles, and execution capability for scaling up North American + Venezuelan production are genuinely non-trivial. Shale economics, pipeline infrastructure, permitting timelines — this transition is not frictionless. We’re bullish on the direction, but the timeline and magnitude carry real uncertainty.

Subscribe now

The Grand Framework: Middle Eastern Petrodollar → American Petrodollar + AI Dollar

The Old Order (1974–2026)

Middle Eastern Petrodollar: GCC produces oil → settles in USD → recycled into Treasuries → US provides security guarantee. This has been the backbone of dollar hegemony for half a century.

The New Order (Forming Now)

• North American Petrodollar: Middle Eastern production capacity gets destroyed → global buyers forced to purchase from North America (US + Canada + Venezuela) → USD demand maintained through energy trade.

• AI Dollar: US controls chips (NVIDIA export controls) + controls energy (data center power) → both critical inputs to the AI supply chain locked under US control → dual lock-in.

Who Gets Protected. Who Gets Abandoned.

• ✅ Japan, Korea, Taiwan — irreplaceable in the AI hardware chain (HBM, equipment, advanced nodes). The US has every incentive to export energy to them. Think of it as a new form of “protection fee.”

• ❌ NATO / Europe — weak AI hardware presence beyond ASML. Being gradually abandoned. Trump’s NATO exit rhetoric isn’t a coincidence.

• ❌ Everyone else — India, Southeast Asia, Africa, Australia, etc. — no critical role in either AI hardware or energy supply.

But This New Order Is More Fragile Than It Looks

That said — we’re constructive on the direction, but let’s not pretend this is a done deal. The New Order is still forming, and it carries real question marks that the Old Order didn’t have. The petrodollar system survived for 50 years because it was simple and self-reinforcing — oil for security, dollars for Treasuries, everyone knew the rules. What’s replacing it is far more complex and far less tested.

The biggest variable: Russia and China aren’t just watching. China can try to lock up whatever Middle Eastern production survives through bilateral deals and Belt & Road energy infrastructure, while using economic leverage — rare earths, market access, supply chain pressure — to squeeze US allies in Asia-Pacific. Japan, Korea, and Taiwan are irreplaceable in the AI hardware chain, but they’re also deeply embedded in China’s manufacturing ecosystem. If Beijing can create enough discomfort, some of them might hedge their bets. None of this is easy to execute, but it means the US can’t take its Middle East strategy or its Asia-Pacific alliances entirely for granted. The transition from old order to new order is the most vulnerable phase — and we’re right in the middle of it.

Near-Term Playbook: How This Plays Out for Trading

Read more

Yesterday at 12:37 PM ET, the market suddenly decided it wasn’t.

Two minutes later, ZeroHedge dropped the “peace” headline.

The news didn’t move the market. The market moved the news.

What Actually Happened

S&P ripped +2.9%. Nasdaq +3.8%. Call options flooded in. VIX got crushed. By afternoon, FinTwit was calling it a ceasefire rally.

There was no ceasefire.

Here’s what the timeline actually looks like:

No original reporting. Bloomberg — with contacts everywhere — was 12 minutes behind a blog known for running unverified content.

And IRNA’s official Twitter? As of yesterday afternoon, no record of the statement. Nothing.

The headline had no primary source.

The President Has No Power

Even if the quote was real, it doesn’t matter.

Iran’s president is a decorative vase. The real power sits with Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei and the IRGC — the same people who have zero incentive to end the war while Hormuz remains their best leverage. The IRGC decides when this war ends — not the president, not the foreign ministry.

Iran’s foreign minister has already said it publicly: “trust level is at zero” and there is “no truth to the claim of negotiations.”

The person who supposedly signaled peace cannot deliver peace. The market priced in a ceasefire that the person quoted has no authority to offer.

We’ve Seen This Before

In 2022, during the Ukraine war, FT, WSJ, and Bloomberg took turns running ceasefire rumors. Oil dropped. Equities rallied. The war continued.

Same playbook. Different war.

A well-timed rumor, a low-credibility first source, circular media amplification, and a market that desperately wants to believe the pain is over.

And underneath it all — a 2-minute head start. Correlation isn’t proof, but that timing is worth asking about.

What’s Real

Brent is pushing $115–$120. Up over 60% since February 27.

Hormuz is still physically closed. No deal. No timeline. No mechanism for reopening that doesn’t involve either a US military operation or an Iranian concession nobody in Tehran has the authority to make.

6 to 8 more weeks of this and $150+ becomes the new floor.

Yesterday’s rally was not a signal. It was noise — possibly manufactured noise.

The Trade Hasn’t Changed

Oil dips are entries.

Equity bounces are exits.

And the longer this drags on, the higher the floor becomes.

Boots on the ground isn’t a choice. It’s an inevitability.

No news. No noise. Just signal.