#特朗普宣布美伊停火结束 The Shortest-Lived Ceasefire Agreement: US-Iran Game Restarts, Global Market Switches from "Peace Premium" to "War Panic"

On February 28, 2026, the US and Israel launched a large-scale military operation against Iran, killing Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei, sharply escalating the situation in the Middle East. In the more than 100 days since, the war has raged, with international oil prices breaking through $110/barrel at one point, shaking global markets. Three months after the war broke out, the development momentum based on both sides' expectations made both the US and Iran willing to sit down and talk. With mediation by Pakistan and other countries, the US and Iran finally released the formal text of the "Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding" on June 17, and completed the signing remotely in the early hours of June 18.

The memorandum is essentially not a final peace agreement, but a "ceasefire framework": first end military conflict, open the Strait of Hormuz, the US lifts the maritime blockade, and then leave a 60-day window for negotiations on core issues such as the nuclear issue. At the time, the outside world generally regarded it as the most significant breakthrough since US-Iran talks, while analysts also soberly pointed out that peace would depend on the high-risk negotiations over the next 60 days.

Facts have proven that this optimism was too hasty.
The memorandum, with vague clauses, had already planted mines
After the signing of the memorandum, both sides pledged to reach a final agreement through negotiations within 60 days. However, the so-called "ceasefire" was only on paper from the start. Before the ink on the memorandum was dry, the two sides had significant differences on at least three issues, including the passage mechanism of the Strait of Hormuz and the unfreezing of Iranian assets.
On July 1, the US and Iran held indirect talks in Doha, Qatar, focusing on the implementation of specific clauses of the memorandum, but "no significant progress was made."
At an emergency open meeting of the UN Security Council on July 2, representatives of the US and Iran clashed fiercely over the issue of passage through the Strait of Hormuz, accusing each other of undermining diplomatic efforts. Iran emphasized that Iran "remains fully committed to implementing the Memorandum of Understanding, including its provisions regarding the Strait of Hormuz, provided that the United States faithfully fulfills its own obligations." The US, in turn, accused Iran of "obstructing the passage of all ships through the Strait of Hormuz."
Behind the conflicting claims is a fundamental disagreement: the wording of the memorandum's clause on strait navigation is ambiguous, only stipulating that Iran "makes the best efforts to make arrangements" to ensure the safe passage of commercial vessels, but does not specify the specific implementation method. This "blank space" laid the groundwork for subsequent conflicts.
The vicious cycle of mutual distrust accelerated from there. The US accused Iran of attacking merchant ships, while Iran accused the US of continuing military operations during the negotiations. Both sides tried to establish deterrence through limited conflict, and also wanted to show strength internally and externally.

War reignites, brief "peace" collapses instantly
On July 7, three merchant ships were attacked near the Strait of Hormuz. The US military blamed Iran and immediately launched large-scale airstrikes—hitting more than 80 targets, including Iranian air defense systems, command and control networks, coastal radar sites, anti-ship missile capabilities, and more than 60 small fast boats of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. According to the Wall Street Journal, the scale and intensity of this airstrike were four to five times that of the military strikes against Iran 10 days earlier, intended to send a "strong signal" to Tehran. At the same time, the US Treasury announced the revocation of the 60-day authorization for Iranian oil production, delivery, and sales—which was precisely one of the core elements of the memorandum.
On July 8, Trump publicly stated at the NATO summit in Turkey, "As far as I'm concerned, (the memorandum) is over." He also said he "doesn't want to deal with Iran anymore" and threatened to reimpose a maritime blockade and launch further strikes.
Iran swiftly retaliated. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced that it had "destroyed" 85 important US military facilities in Bahrain and Kuwait through a joint operation of missiles and drones. Iran's Foreign Ministry condemned the US for "seriously violating" the memorandum, while Iranian Parliament Speaker Qalibaf listed five US breaches, including disrupting Iran's arrangements in the Strait of Hormuz, reinstating oil sanctions, and attacking southern Iran.
At this point, from the signing on June 18 to Trump's declaration of "over" on July 8, the memorandum was valid for only 20 days—even shorter if calculated by actual ceasefire. It became one of the shortest-lived ceasefire agreements in international diplomatic history.

Oil prices surge, global markets in severe turmoil
The Strait of Hormuz handles about 32% of global maritime crude oil transportation, with over 14 million barrels of crude oil passing through daily. After more than 100 days of supply disruption, countries dependent on Gulf energy were already facing severe conditions. As war reignites, tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has again nearly come to a standstill.
As the war reignites, global markets experienced a dramatic reversal from "peace expectations" to "war panic" within just 48 hours.
Before the US and Iran show clear willingness to return to the negotiating table, the market will continue to price in potential supply disruptions from the Middle East.

Oil market: from $70 to $80 in just two days
On July 8, after Trump declared the memorandum "over," international oil prices shot up. Brent crude futures briefly rose 7.66%, approaching $80 per barrel; WTI crude gains neared 7%. By the close that day, WTI crude for August delivery on the New York Mercantile Exchange rose 4.37% to settle at $73.52 per barrel, the largest gain in five weeks; London Brent crude rose 5.2% to settle at $78.02 per barrel.
On July 9, the rally continued—Brent crude briefly broke above $80/barrel during trading, with gains of up to 7.88% at some points. This increase was particularly striking in context: less than a week earlier, as the US-Iran memorandum was signed and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz gradually resumed, Brent crude had fallen from its April war peak of $140/barrel to around $70 in early July—in just a few days, the peace premium was almost completely erased.
Notably, US crude inventories fell for the 12th consecutive week, and refined product inventories also declined significantly, with overall inventories at their lowest levels in about four years. Low inventories combined with geopolitical shocks provided solid fundamental support for the oil price rebound.
However, the market is not unanimously bullish. OPEC+ has been increasing production continuously since April, with an additional daily increase of 188k barrels in August; non-OPEC producers such as the US and Brazil are expected to add about 1.15 million barrels per day in 2026; and the International Energy Agency expects global oil demand to shrink by about 1.1 million barrels per day year-on-year in 2026.
Many institutions believe that although geopolitical conflicts can temporarily push oil prices higher, they are unlikely to change the broad trend of loose supply in the medium term. As an upstream commodity for chemicals and energy, oil price fluctuations are rapidly transmitting along the industrial chain.

Precious and non-ferrous metals: "abnormal" performance of safe-haven logic
Contrary to conventional safe-haven logic, gold did not rise due to the geopolitical conflict—instead, it fell sharply. COMEX gold futures closed down 1.7% at $4,086.6 per ounce; COMEX silver futures fell even more, closing down 4.3% at $58.69 per ounce. Gold prices fell as much as 2.1% to below $4,030 per ounce during the session.
The market logic underwent a subtle but critical shift: surging oil prices intensified inflation concerns, investors expected the Fed might be forced to raise interest rates, the US dollar index and Treasury yields rose in tandem, putting pressure on zero-yield gold. The market is switching from "geopolitical safe-haven" mode to "tightening fears" mode. Non-ferrous metals came under pressure as well. Copper prices on the London Metal Exchange fell, as the escalation in the Middle East renewed market concerns about weaker economic growth and metal demand prospects.

The cryptocurrency market also suffered a heavy blow. Bitcoin fell more than 2% to below $62k, while Ethereum, Solana, and other cryptocurrencies also declined. A co-founder of Orbit Markets pointed out that Bitcoin fell rapidly after Trump's remarks, as the market feared rising energy prices could trigger a new round of inflation and potentially force central banks to raise interest rates further.

Market expectations of Fed rate hikes reemerge
This may be the most profound economic impact of the conflict—it is rewriting the global interest rate path. The Fed's June meeting minutes showed that officials generally believed that if inflation remains high this year, further interest rate hikes would be needed. The minutes explicitly noted that the Middle East war, along with AI investment expansion and tariff policies, constitute important factors that could keep inflation elevated and prompt the Fed to raise rates.
After Trump declared the memorandum "over," market investors expected the Fed to raise rates one to two times this year in early trading that day. Traders see a more than 30% chance of a rate hike at the next Fed meeting, well above the less than 20% seen last Thursday.
Senior market strategist Ed Yardeni warned that the collapse of the ceasefire could trigger a new round of accelerating inflation, which could force the Fed to raise rates—"The Fed has not only turned hawkish, but may actually have to tighten." The dollar index consequently climbed to a five-day high, driven by safe-haven demand due to heightened Middle East tensions, while rising oil prices boosted expectations of a September rate hike.

In any case, one thing is clear: a fragile memorandum cannot sustain peace in the Middle East, and the "black swan" of a local conflict is enough to once again violently shake global markets.
The future suspense is not whether the war will continue, but how and when it will end. Looking back over the past few months, the repeated twists and turns of the Middle East situation have always affected international capital markets—spot gold has retreated nearly 30% from its historical high of $5,598 per ounce, while Brent crude has swung sharply between $75 and $118 per barrel.
This conflict confirms once again: geopolitical "black swans" are never absent, and every shock to global markets will ultimately be passed on to the energy bills and living costs of every ordinary consumer.