Oil, Nasdaq, and war: what the markets really said

A 1.5% drop in the Nasdaq being described as an 'imminent crash' on 24-hour news channels: this is the level of analysis to which financial markets are subjected whenever a geopolitical event makes the headlines. In this regard, we need to put the data back into its true context, separating the media noise from the actual market structure. What I'm seeing in this sequence is exactly the illustration of a well-known mechanism: perceived tension far exceeds real tension, and prices ultimately arbitrate it.

Oil: extreme volatility, rapid resolution

During this sequence, oil was the most spectacular asset to analyze. A surge of over 30%, pushing prices close to $120, built up based on the weekend's events; then a gradual deceleration began, followed by a sharp downward acceleration as soon as Donald Trump spoke publicly.

The message delivered was essentially this: the war will be short, the enemy is neutralized, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz is recognized and will not be left unanswered. This speech—which can be described as reassuring for the markets—was enough to bring prices back down from $120 to around $90.

However, the underlying geostrategic logic needs to be clarified. If the real objective had been to block Iranian oil exports, the strategic target is well known: an isolated island in the Strait of Hormuz, lacking air defense, which alone accounts for about 90% of Iranian oil exports—this is where supertankers refuel. That infrastructure was not hit. I'm willing to bet it won't be. The combined pressures from China, the United States, and the European Union are all converging in the same direction: keeping traffic flowing through the strait. The Iranians themselves have not scuttled their own terminal, which says something about the true limits of the conflict.

The Nasdaq: a 1,000-point jump, no crash

While the media was portraying a disastrous situation based on a -1.5% opening, the Nasdaq 100 surged from 24,000 to 25,000 points during the session—an increase of more than 4% from its lowest point. This is a massive move, the likes of which we certainly don't see every day.

We need to be precise about the levels here:

1. 24,000 points matched the annual low; an algorithmically significant level where I would normally have taken a position—unfortunately, the dip happened between midnight and 2 AM.
2. 25,000 points is a level that had already been tested before the current events: the December low, the November support zone. Returning to these familiar areas is not insignificant; it reflects a sense of confidence in the cycle's continuity.
3. The upward acceleration coincided perfectly with Donald Trump's speech—proving, once again, the weight of political statements in short-term price discovery.

The S&P 500 is stabilizing around 6,800 points; the Dow Jones has retraced about 50% of its drop, blocked by a monthly resistance. There is a clear divide between the US indices, driven by Nasdaq tech stocks, and European indices, which are more moderate in their rebound.

European indices and key levels

Over in Europe, the CAC 40 is touching the 8,000-point mark again—a level I've been mentioning for about two months, which acts as a structural reference. Meanwhile, the DAX 40 has positioned itself back above 23,500 points, sending a positive positioning signal.

All indices are thus back in key zones, or even slightly above them. This does not mean volatility is dead: another downward wave remains possible depending on how the strikes evolve. But at this stage, the market structure is consistent with a scenario where the conflict is resolved relatively quickly.

Gold, Bitcoin, and peripheral signals

In this setup, gold is holding within its usual range—which, reading between the lines, provides useful insight: the lack of a flight to safe-haven assets reflects moderate systemic anxiety, a far cry from what media coverage might have suggested.

Bitcoin is back up to $70,000. I have few serious analytical comments to offer regarding the driving forces behind this move.

Regarding diesel: gas stations had anticipated the rising price of oil per barrel by hiking their prices to €2.20 – €2.50. The decline, as always, will structurally be slower than the ascent. This comes as no surprise; it's a well-documented inertia in the supply chain.

The Iranian fracture: a diplomatic signal to watch

Within the Iranian government, signs of fracture are beginning to emerge. Just 24 hours ago, a Revolutionary Guard maintained a stance of absolute intransigence—negotiation was out of the question. Overnight, Iranian diplomats mentioned an interest in a ceasefire. This is a notable development, even if it remains uncertain.

It is likely—and this is an estimate, not a certainty—that this gap in positions will only widen if the conflict drags on for another two to three weeks. The internal dynamics of a regime under military pressure generally follow this kind of trajectory: public firmness first, then quiet doubts, and finally, openness.

Conclusion

The sequence analyzed here illustrates with remarkable clarity the distortion between media narrative and the structural reality of the markets: while the word 'crash' was making the rounds based on a 1.5% correction, the Nasdaq was building one of its most bullish sessions of the year. Indices have returned to their November-December levels, oil has absorbed its risk premium, and gold hasn't flinched—three converging signals of a market that, in stock market terms, remains relatively serene.

Sign up for the newsletter and receive a $100 USD gift token